NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 24, 2000

• 0823

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of Canadian forest management practices as an international trade issue, the meeting is now convened.

Mr. Minister, I thank you very much, first of all, for coming, and secondly, for your patience while the chair took his time examining the equipment that lifts people up to this floor. A good welcome to your officials, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Harrison, as well.

Colleagues, the minister, as I recall, has made himself available for the entire day, as long as the day ends before cabinet begins. So we'll go immediately to our session.

Mr. Goodale, I think you're familiar with what happens in some of these things. Our colleagues prefer to have a dialogue with our witnesses, so if you could keep your remarks to about 10 minutes, we'll take it from there.

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be back here once again, this time for a particular focus on Canadian forestry.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce for the first time to the committee my deputy minister, Dr. Peter Harrison, who assumed those responsibilities last fall. I'm sure committee members are all familiar with Dr. Hardy of the Canadian Forest Service.

I want to begin by thanking you for the interim report this committee prepared on forest management practices as an international trade issue. I read that interim report with interest and I am certainly looking forward to receiving your final recommendations once the committee has completed its deliberations, and particularly its tour of eastern Canada.

• 0825

When we met last May, Canada's economy was beginning to boom and there was a great deal of optimism about the future. Now, nine months later, the outlook is even brighter. We've entered the 21st century with the lowest national unemployment rate in nearly a quarter of a century. More new jobs are being created virtually every day, with nearly two million net new jobs since 1993. We have stable interest rates, and inflation remains in check. Taxes and the national debt are coming down, and experts are predicting strong economic growth in Canada for the foreseeable future, in fact, the best among the G-7.

Prospects are also improving for our natural resources industries. They have struggled, as you know, through some difficult times lately, but they have managed to stay competitive despite low commodity prices, global market disruptions, and an array of new environmental challenges.

Most of our resource sectors are now showing some solid signs of an economic rebound. The strong U.S. economy and recovering Asian and European markets are expected to further boost the demand for our resource products.

A strong resources sector is absolutely vital to our economy and our society. Together, the forest, minerals, energy, geomatics, and other related industries account for more than 11% of Canada's gross domestic product. That works out to about $88 billion per year. They directly employ about 780,000 Canadians and an equal number indirectly. They account for 22% of all new capital investment in the country. That works out to about $35 billion per year. These sectors together generated $97 billion in exports in 1998, and they provided the economic lifeblood for more than 600 communities from coast to coast to coast.

The forest industry alone touches more communities and more lives in Canada than any other single sector of the national economy, and I'm sure this was evident to your committee during your recent travels in western Canada. Forestry adds $88 billion to the Canadian GDP, and contributes $32 billion to our surplus trade balance. That is more than any other industry.

The win strategy of Natural Resources Canada, which I discussed with you last May—that is winning in the knowledge-based economy—is intended to ensure that Canada's resource industries become and remain the smartest such industries in the world: the best stewards, developers, users, and exporters; the most high-tech; the most socially responsible; the most environmentally friendly; and the most productive and competitive, leading the world as a successful, living model of sustainable development. I'm very pleased that the Speech from the Throne last fall further positioned our natural resources sectors as an integral part of the knowledge-based and technology-driven new economy of the new millennium.

In all of the forestry policies and programs of this government, sustainable development is our priority and our guiding principle. It is the industry's priority. Our customers are demanding it. Canada is in fact practising it, and it is working. Sustaining our forest resources sustains the industry, sustains jobs, sustains communities, and sustains our precious environment.

Your interim report captures some of the challenges we face in getting Canada's sustainable development message out to Canadians and to our forest-product customers around the world. New competitors in the marketplace, changing public values, and the trend toward green consumerism are all key factors affecting us as a global trader of forest products, and we need to remember that we are the biggest in the world.

• 0830

The most effective way to tackle these issues is by working together in a true Team Canada approach to establish a level international playing field for forest management and forest product trade. Through partnership initiatives with the provinces, territories, and the entire forest community, we are making progress in demonstrating to Canadians and the world that Canada practises sustainable forest management.

I'd like to mention just briefly some developments that have occurred since our last meeting, including some that relate directly to two recommendations in your interim report.

First, I'm pleased to report that the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers has renewed the international forestry partnership program for the next five years, with some increased funding. This committee is among many stakeholders who have recognized the merits of this program in counteracting, in key export markets, certain misinformation about Canada's forest policies and practices.

Through the international forestry partnership program, we are continuing our efforts to defuse a motion by the Council of Europe that could impact on our export of forest products. This motion, like similar campaigns, is based upon poor information.

The renewed program will continue to focus on Europe, but the additional funding will allow us to put some more emphasis on the American and Japanese markets too.

Your interim report also addressed the issue of forest certification, a voluntary market-based tool intended to give consumers the confidence that Canadian wood products do in fact come from sustainably managed forests. Canada's industry is moving on this challenge. I'm pleased to report that almost 12 million hectares, or about 10%, of Canada's managed forests are now certified. That should increase to about 60% by the end of the year 2003.

My department is working with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to ensure that certification does not become a trade barrier. In particular, we are promoting the use of nationally and internationally accepted definitions of sustainable forest management in certification standards, and we are encouraging the exploration of equivalency principles and the mutual recognition of standards, most recently through our work on some of the agencies of the United Nations.

I also want to update you on some other initiatives to promote Canadian forest practices and products, beginning with the trade and investment mission that I led to China during the month of January. This was Canada's largest natural resources mission ever, including 75 private firms, 19 of them from the forest sector, plus aboriginal and municipal leaders and three provincial ministers.

The Team Canada style of missions have proven time and again to be an effective way to open new doors for two-way trade and investment, and the China mission was no exception. It was an opportunity for the forest community to work together to spread the word about Canadian products, Canadian innovation, and Canadian expertise in one of the largest and fastest-growing markets in the world, and I'm pleased to report that we took full advantage of that opportunity.

During meetings with Chinese counterparts, we discussed issues of market access and promoted the use of wood products in the construction sector. We made progress on bilateral forestry cooperation issues, including the signing of a letter of intent on fire management training. We were also asked about Canadian expertise in such areas as forest pest management and forest renewal, and that is a sure sign that Canada's forest management practices are well respected internationally.

While in China, it was my pleasure to participate in the official opening in Shanghai of a new joint office involving the Quebec wood export bureau and British Columbia wood specialties. This office will help innovative Canadian wood products manufacturers take full advantage of the tremendous trade opportunities in this emerging market.

In Korea, we had discussions with the minister of construction about the development of new market opportunities for Canadian wood building products and related energy-efficient building technologies. A Canadian-style residential subdivision may soon begin to take shape in Seoul.

In Japan, we had the opportunity to reinforce Canada's commitment to sustainable forest management practices, not only to my ministerial counterparts but to Japanese forest product executives and the Japanese media.

• 0835

But there is more to our international forest activities than promoting trade. As you know, Canada is also leading the drive for a global forest convention. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and my department played a key role at a meeting of the UN's Intergovernmental Forum on Forests about a month ago in New York. Thanks to Canada's efforts, a consensus was reached to recommend the creation of a permanent body—that would be the United Nations Intergovernmental Forum on Forests—that would focus on implementing voluntary proposals made by the IFF for action on sustainable forest management. We made progress on the consideration of a process that could result in a legal framework for forests worldwide.

With Costa Rica over the past year, Canada has hosted a series of meetings around the world to exchange information with 130 other countries on the merits of a legally binding instrument to manage and protect the world's forests.

That is all in addition to, not instead of, the current agenda of the IFF. All of this work is leading to the eighth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, which will take place this April. I can assure you that Canada's views on a global forest convention will be strongly expressed in that forum.

Closer to home, we continue to work with the Canadian Wood Council and the wood products industry in the Wood Works! program. This initiative is designed to promote the use of wood in commercial construction by educating architects, designers, and other building professionals about the qualities and capabilities of wood. Pilot projects have been successfully established in Prince George, B.C., Chicoutimi, Quebec, and Grande Prairie, Alberta, with future projects planned in Ontario and the Maritimes.

We're also continuing to pursue goals set out in the national forest strategy: 79 federal action plans, developed through a collective effort involving 20 departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, have just been released. This strategy will continue to evolve over its life.

Efforts are also underway to finalize Canada's report on sustainable forest management, using a core set of scientific criteria and indicators. This report, which is a joint initiative between my department and the provinces, will be released at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in April. It will demonstrate Canada's commitment to measure its progress toward sustainable development.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say again that I very much appreciate this committee's work and counsel and its interest in the vital issues that are important to natural resources. Specifically with respect to forestry, I wish you well in your upcoming travels to forest communities in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick.

I understand the committee's next challenge is to undertake a review of the minerals and mining sector, which faces a completely different set of market access issues. I would encourage the committee to look specifically at where Canada should be positioning itself to take advantage of emerging opportunities in a global context as one dimension of the review. Building on the spirit of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, the committee might consider ways to promote more effective partnerships among all the stakeholders in the mining sector.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I look forward to responding to questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister Goodale.

Now, I had said to you before you appeared, and I advised the colleagues around the table, that while everybody wants to take advantage of the opportunity to have a minister before them, we were going to limit our questions to the issue at hand. If we depart from that, please be prepared to find that I will curb questions until the very end. If there's time left then, maybe we'll redirect some of those questions to the minister.

Mr. Stinson, you're first, so lead us off.

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): First of all, thank you, Mr. Minister. I'd also like to request a copy of your presentation here today, if I may.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Sure. We can make that available to all members of the committee later today.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Thank you. I appreciate that.

In regard to forestry here in Canada right now, one of the biggest stumbling blocks tends to be the softwood lumber agreement. Right now the Americans themselves are having great concern in regard to this agreement. They've also suggested scrapping it and going more towards a free trade lumber agreement. In their presentations they've also mentioned bidding on timber blocks, which would be including the exporting of raw logs from Canada.

• 0840

Have you done any follow-up or estimates in regard to what this would do to Canadian lumber jobs—what the impact would be here in Canada?

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

What would your stand be on that?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stinson.

This is obviously a very important issue and one that will need careful attention from us all between now and March 2001, when the current agreement is set to terminate.

A senior Canadian diplomat, Doug Waddell was appointed some time ago to lead the federal government's formal domestic consultations on the various policy options we have available to us for the softwood lumber industry. The feedback to date, through Mr. Waddell's consultations, suggests that virtually all of the interested parties in Canada are looking for alternatives to the status quo, which is obviously not regarded as the most satisfactory state of affairs, but there is not yet industry-wide consensus on exactly what should replace the current state of affairs.

I understand that a number of senior executives in the lumber industry met recently in Quebec City. They have agreed to continue to try to work together toward a unified Canadian position that would achieve a much improved trading relationship with the Americans, in respect of that particular market.

On the point you raised about potential various American bargaining positions—there is an array of views on the American side too—they are all being very carefully monitored and analysed for their impact on Canada. That work is underway and ongoing. It is not yet complete, but I certainly agree with at least the indirect point you're making, that as the Americans come up with various ideas and proposals from various groups, we need to fully understand what each of those might mean for the Canadian industry, so when we get to a point of actually talking with them in a negotiation some months down the road, we will have a complete understanding of what alternative paths might lead to, so we can go into this thing with our eyes wide open and understand what we're doing.

I've asked Mr. Dowswell from DFAIT to join me at the table. He may be able to provide more technical information, specifically about the softwood lumber situation.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell (Director General, Export and Import Controls Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada): Minister, I think you've covered it very well. If there are some other questions, I can respond later.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: You stated that you're working with the forest industry, trying to offset some of the rhetoric that's going on over in Europe about our forest practices over here. I think it's long overdue that we should start to be involved in this and try to shut this down.

Exactly how involved is the government with the forest industry in this? How much money are we putting in to combat what's going on over there, with Greenpeace and so forth?

• 0845

Mr. Ralph Goodale: The centrepiece initiative up to now is what is generally referred to as the international forestry partnerships program. It's an initiative of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, so it's federal and provincial. It's been in effect since about 1992.

It was about to expire in the last year, and the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers successfully renegotiated not only its continuation, but also a bit of an increase in the resources available to it. So it's been renewed for a further five-year period, with at least $800,000 per year that's cost-shared federally and provincially.

We're preparing a business case between the federal government and the provinces that could take that amount of money up to $1.2 million per year, for a total of $6 million altogether over that period of time, cost-shared federally and provincially.

The money is used for two purposes. First of all, when there are mistaken, erroneous, misleading communications campaigns, particularly in Europe—as I mentioned in my remarks, the incremental money will allow us to also be more active in the American market and the Japanese market, but the principal focus up to now has been Europe—the objective is to respond immediately. Don't leave a lingering rumour out there. Get the facts on the table quickly, from a very authoritative source. The provinces and industry contribute to that input, and the message is conveyed essentially through Canadian diplomatic posts in Europe.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Is it starting to work?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: The short answer to that question is yes. The second part of this effort is to invite those who are critical to come here and see for themselves, not just base their opinions on some bit of information they happen to browse through on the Internet, but to come and look at the forests in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta and see for themselves.

The experience from that has demonstrated that the vast majority of those who were critical from a distance, once they come here and see for themselves, go away very substantially reassured about the sustainability of Canadian forest practices.

We intend to continue that effort, and it does have to be a real team effort. The provinces, the industry, the unions, the forest communities, and the environmental organizations all need to collaborate on this to make the strongest case for Canada. We will continue to do that.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Just to pick up on Mr. Stinson's questions, yesterday the Sierra Club called our information program propaganda. They allowed that it was quite okay for NGOs to deliver their propaganda in Europe and collect the ensuing cheques, but it was somehow unfair of us to deliver our propaganda.

Your comment that we want to get all the environmental organizations on side is well taken and, believe me, essential, but if the Sierra Club's testimony yesterday is any indicator, they are not yet on side. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I suppose what some people might regard as information, others might regard as propaganda and vice versa. It all depends on the eye of the beholder. That's obviously a subjective judgment.

• 0850

There's one thing from our perspective as the Government of Canada, though. We have an obligation to fairly and accurately represent the facts. We have that duty to Canadians, and we have that duty as responsible citizens of the world.

Through my department—particularly the Canadian Forest Service—and through the auspices of DFAIT, when information is published and disseminated under the title of the Government of Canada, we do everything we possibly can to make sure that information is precise and accurate and that it can withstand the test of very severe scrutiny. I have real confidence that the information produced by the Government of Canada with respect to Canadian forest practices is accurate and reliable information. On many occasions when we have examined the information of our foreign critics, we have found that the information is incomplete or outdated, or it is just sometimes badly researched or selectively researched.

So I think it's a case, Mr. Reed, of all of us trying to be accurate and to be credible in what we say and how we say it, and of making sure that when a pronouncement is made by the Government of Canada, people can have confidence that they can rely on that pronouncement in that it is based upon solid information and solid research. And we all need to continue to try to broaden the consensus.

I mentioned the win strategy in my preliminary remarks. If you remember, we discussed that win strategy for Natural Resources Canada about a year ago. One of the elements in it was consensus-building. Consensus is often an elusive thing, but it's something we have to continue to work at. Quite frankly, I think some of the activities of this committee can be very helpful in that search for consensus so that we can all at least agree on the facts.

Mr. Julian Reed: Minister, there was one other statement that I wondered if you might comment upon, and that was that the forests in Canada are in the greatest danger from global warming. Is there any evidence to support that at this point? Have there been any changes in the forest cover?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I heard that comment reported yesterday, and I assume what the Sierra Club was getting at was that because of Canada's particular northern geographical location, there are some parts of Canada that may be among the most susceptible of any countries in the world to the impacts of climate change. That tends to be true of countries that happen to be in our geographical location.

The impacts of climate change could change weather patterns significantly; could cause more droughts in some areas and more floods in other areas; could cause more severe weather conditions overall, and more variable conditions; could have an impact on water flows; and could have an impact on biodiversity. So climate change is an issue that I think we have to take very seriously, and we have to act accordingly.

One of the superior experts in forest science is sitting here with us: Dr. Yvan Hardy. He has had a very long and distinguished career in the forest sector in Canada.

Yvan, do you have some further comments to add about forests and climate?

Dr. Yvan Hardy (Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources Canada): Maybe I'll add a few things to what you said, Minister.

There's speculation, but we cannot predict the future that much. The Canadian Forest Service does have a research program on climate change, and there are two aspects that we're looking at in particular. One is the ability of the forest to sequester carbon—that is, the Canadian forest as a sink, as opposed to a source—and then we're looking at the impact.

• 0855

In Sault Ste. Marie in particular, we have a piece of research that is trying to simulate what is going to happen to tree species, habitat for wildlife, and so on, given the current hypothesis on how quickly the climate is warming and what effect that would have on the ecosystem. What that reveals is that, sure enough, there would be some changes, but they would be rather slow. Hopefully, nature would likely adapt to it as it moves.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Canuel.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Minister, I would like to revert to the free trade issue. I understand that the majority of the members of the industry in Quebec do not want a renewal of this agreement in the year 2001. I don't know whether those outside Quebec share this view. I received letters from members of the industry from Quebec and I met several of them. They told me that they would prefer us to scrap this free trade agreement because some of their rights have been interfered with.

I would quote as an example the Boisaco company, of Sacré- Coeur, on the North Shore, which asked for some quotas and made a small mistake which cost them millions. Please note the fact that I am not saying that the department made the error.

I would like to know your position, as the minister responsible for the forests, in the face of international trade and of those members of the industry.

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: My objective, Monsieur Canuel, is to obtain maximum market access opportunities for Canadian forest products in every market internationally. Obviously the U.S. market is very close by, very attractive, and a very convenient and lucrative market, but there are other opportunities globally. I believe our efforts should be aimed toward the maximum access that we can have.

Obviously in a trading relationship there are two sides at the negotiating table, and the Americans will have their views about what they want to obtain. But from my perspective, it would be desirable to have arrangements in place that make it as easy as possible for all Canadians to export into the American market.

In order to have the strongest possible Canadian position, it will be important over this coming year or so, and as soon as possible within that timeframe, quite frankly, to develop if we can a solid, unified Canadian position whereby all the Canadian stakeholders are on the same side of the argument and are advocating it vigorously. Work is going forward in that direction, but I don't think we can say at this stage that we have arrived at that point of a totally unified position.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: What is your personal position today? Would you be more inclined to favor the non-renewal of the agreement? I understand very well your position in the face of the United States, which are a giant. I will not ask you what is your exact position since it would raise issues a bit everywhere but I would like to know what you would be inclined to adopt.

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: From a Canadian exporter's point of view, the ideal position is to have market access without restrictions. That's the perfect result that everybody should strive for. Whether or not the Americans will be amenable to that point of view remains to be seen, of course, but Canadians generally should have the ability to have the maximum amount of market access.

• 0900

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: You are saying that the forest is healthy in Canada. I have been here for six years and I am being told all the time that everything is OK. I have been in Vancouver and I made a helicopter ride where I was shown nice forests. I told to myself that it was not as bad as all that, although I heard later that I was not shown some parts.

In Quebec, Richard Desjardins made a film entitled L'Erreur boréale, which everybody knows in Gaspe. Even Mr. Brassard told us that the situation was not as serious as all that in Quebec. One thing remains, namely that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, in my opinion. Perhaps did Mr. Desjardins go a little bit too far, but as Canadians and Quebeckers, we have a duty to protect our forests. It is particularly the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that some research and development is done in that area, since forests are under provincial jurisdiction, as we all know.

We have here a deputy minister I know. I agree that he is a specialist and that he does an excellent job. Mr. Minister, since you have been Minister of Agriculture, can you tell us why a cow that gave us a certain quantity of milk twenty years ago, now gives...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. René Canuel: Because of genetics, it could be the same cow. If a cow now gives 20, 30 or 40 times more milk, it is because we made efforts in this direction and because we invested in genetics.

I think that, in the area of forestry, we do not make enough efforts in the area of genetics. It still takes 40, 50 or 100 years for a tree to grow.

[English]

A voice: He's wrong.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: It seems to me that this period could be reduced to 20 or 30 years. What budget do we allocate to genetics? Where are our laboratories? I'll let you answer these questions and then, I'll ask another.

[English]

The Chair: Minister Goodale, you probably don't have a very long speech to give in response, because you only have about thirty seconds left.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Canuel, you touched upon the critical issue of research and development in the forestry sector. That is one of the very important mandates of Natural Resources Canada, and the Canadian Forest Service in particular. I'm pleased to say the CFS has been performing that function stretching back now to just over a hundred years, in collaboration with provincial agencies, academic institutions, the private sector, and so forth.

The genetic improvement of trees is indeed one of our priorities. As a symbol of that, this year we are producing the Canadian millennium tree, which is a product of Canadian genetic engineering in the forestry sector.

Mr. Chairman, because this is a very technical area, I would like to file with the committee, through Dr. Hardy, an outline of the research activities of the CFS, both on its own account and in collaboration with others. I will particularly highlight this area of improving the genetic quality of our trees so that we can have those kinds of improvements for the future.

The Chair: The committee looks forward to receiving those documents.

Did you want to say something before we go on to the next one, Dr. Hardy, or can we just wait for the submission?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: If I may, Mr. Chairman,

[Translation]

I am going to say a few words on this .

The Chair: Wait a minute.

While the Chair is still the Chair,

[English]

before the palace coup actually takes place, I'm sorry, but I have to go to somebody else. I have to go to Mr. St-Julien, but I'll give you an opportunity to come back on this, Dr. Hardy.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): My first question relates to free trade and quotas. On February 22, a group of members of the House of Representatives tabled before the US Congress, a resolution asking for the removal of limitations on Canadian softwood lumber processing in the United States.

• 0905

We know that members of the forestry industry in Abitibi and in Quebec demand a return to free market with the United States. The Free trade Council on Softwood lumber, chaired by Frank Dottori, want this agreement to be abolished on the date of expiry, although other people claim that the status quo is preferable. There is something I find strange about quotas. Small lumber companies, which we call "remans" in Quebec, are affected in their rights.

We have some difficulty obtaining those quotas. I realize that this matter is not your department's responsibility, but I would like to make you aware of this situation. For several years, brokers who operate in Ontario have plenty of quotas. They do not even have employees or mills, but Quebeckers and the people of the Abitibi region have a hard time because they have trouble covering their operating costs.

Today, for the first time, US companies are supporting Canada and Quebec. They will oppose tariff quotas on softwood lumber. You know that the adoption of the resolution to abolish them which was tabled before the US Congress does not even require president Clinton's signature.

I want to know exactly your position on this. Why are the rights of lumber companies in the Abitibi region, be it Précibois or Norbord affected? They have been coming to Ottawa for years and are always repeating the same thing: no way. We are left behind while the four broker companies in Ontario receive plenty of quotas. Why?

[English]

The Chair: That's a good question.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I think I'm going to have to ask Mr. Dowswell to respond to at least part of that question on behalf of DFAIT, in terms of the particular application of the quota arrangements. I would just make two or three points very briefly, though.

First, I'm sure all of us would prefer not to have quotas. We would prefer to have arrangements whereby every Canadian could have full access to that very important market. Unfortunately, that's not entirely our decision to make, because obviously the Americans control the access issues when it's their market. Mind you, they do have obligations to adhere to in terms of the NAFTA and the WTO and so forth, so Canada is not entirely without bargaining leverage as we go into this.

In approaching a difficult set of negotiations, the best approach is to have the strongest, most unified Canadian position. Stakeholders in the industry are trying to come to that consensus position on the Canadian side, so that we can all be agreed in these negotiations about what we want to achieve and so that we're all working in the same direction.

With respect to the existing quotas, the arrangement was arrived at largely based upon an agreement among the stakeholders on the Canadian side. If we had to be stuck with this situation, then how would we live with it and how would we divide it up? Obviously it's that sort of thing that we'd like to get out of for the future, but we'll see what those negotiations bring.

Maybe I could ask Mr. Dowswell from DFAIT to comment upon the way in which the quota is applied, and the perceived inequities between different regions.

The Chair: Mr. Dowswell, you're the director general for export and import markets at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: That's correct, yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Go ahead.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: Thank you.

Minister, I think you've indicated quite clearly that in terms of the existing quota management system, the methodology was largely derived through consultations with the industry groups across Canada, among the four provinces that are covered. It reflected the best consensus we could get at that time. Clearly, as everybody knows, not everybody is happy in a limited quota situation. Of course we have tried to deal with that over the past few years. Many of you have approached us on behalf of various companies, and we have attempted to correct errors where errors have occurred, and we have done that. In terms of situations in which the companies have not met the criteria—for example, they had not exported to the United States at all, and that was one of the prime criteria—then clearly there's not a lot we have been able to do.

• 0910

In terms of the situation in Quebec particularly, together with the Quebec association, the AMBSQ, due to high prices in the last little while we have received what are called bonus allocations, and we've deliberately, with their concurrence, directed those bonuses to companies that have low quota-to-sales ratios in order to provide as much benefit to them as we can. That is an effort we've been making over the last six months with those companies.

Thank you.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. St-Julien's questions and the other questions about softwood lumber all point to the great desirability of all of us on the Canadian side working very hard in the months immediately ahead to try to make sure we have a unified Canadian point of view going into the next round of negotiations with the Americans. If we're together on this thing, at the end of the day we'll be stronger.

The Chair: Mr. Goodale, is one of the divergent views encapsulated in the perception that perhaps what the current system has done is encourage, not by intent, by action, but by outcome, the growth of the secondary market in forestry and the creation of longer-term jobs in finished products here in Canada as opposed to exporting the raw material south and elsewhere?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Dowswell.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: Thank you, Minister.

We do not have some very precise statistics, but there's a fair amount of anecdotal commentary that this has happened actually as re-manufacturers have gone into upstream products to be outside of quota. There has been an increase in those kinds of shipments, but we do not have precise information on it.

The Chair: But you're gathering it.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: To the extent we can, yes.

The Chair: I would imagine that's what you would do in preparation for these negotiations, because if there's something to the anecdotal perception, then it would seem to me that the issue of whether the current system is to be preferred or replaced becomes a little murkier than the clarity I thought existed a few moments ago.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: Unfortunately, from the American perspective, they tend to think it's expanding the range of coverage of the agreement rather than being of much benefit to us.

The Chair: Let me go to Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Welcome, Mr. Minister. My colleagues already raised several of my concerns. However, I would like to talk about the serious side of monitoring and research. Yesterday, the representatives of the Sierra Club told us that in the last ten years, federal budgets were cut by about 40 percent. I think that monitoring and research are very important and I agree with my colleague René Canuel, who suggested us to invest more to improve the growth of our trees. You may not agree with me, but I maintain that forests are under provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government only plays a small role in that area. Although it is under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should commit themselves to help the provinces in the area of research. It is difficult to understand why the federal government moved backwards.

I communicated with Mr. Hardy to express my interest in model forests and to tell him that I was interested in the implementation of this principle in our area. I think that where it has been implemented, positive results were obtained. I realize however that deep budget cuts can prevent us from carrying out such projects. I think that it is at that level that the federal government has an important role to play.

I am going to ask you immediately my second question as I am afraid of not being able to make it in the second round. Would the minister be prepared to examine an international forest convention under which we could bring all the players at the same table to discuss our forest programs or the problems all our countries are facing.

• 0915

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Chairman, I think this provides me an opportunity to allow Dr. Hardy to provide some of the details on research that he was about to give a little bit earlier in our proceedings.

Let me just say, Mr. Godin, that I attach a very high premium to research and development, innovation, technology, and technology transfer. These are critical to our success in the future, and forest-related research is absolutely fundamental to our future success domestically and internationally.

I will ask Dr. Hardy to provide some context and some texture to that general comment.

On your last point about an international forest accord or forest convention within a legally binding framework, yes indeed, Canada is the leading advocate in the world for that kind of international instrument. We've been working at it through the last number of years. We'll continue to work at it. We are beginning to make some progress in the various forums of the United Nations moving in that direction.

But over to Dr. Hardy about R and D.

Mr. Yvon Godin: To make the announcement of the budget going up?

A voice: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Hardy: I always leave the pleasure of announcing good news to the minister.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You want to keep your job.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: When the Sierra Club told you about budget cuts of about 40 percent or more, they were quite right. However, this has to be put in context. Under the programs review, the big majority of cuts related to federal provincial agreements.

As far as research at the program review level is concerned, we chose to consolidate our organization. We reduced the number of physical establishments to cut our infrastructure expenditures. We reorganized ourselves into research networks. I think I can say that we retained roughly 80 percent of our previous capacity. We made strategic choices. In fact, we reduced our monitoring activities. For example, we put an end to our inventory of disease- bearing insects and we decided to invest in more strategic areas, such as genetics and tree improvement, which were referred to by Mr. Canuel. If I remember right, we invested 4 to 5 millions a year in that area. We have been engaged in research to improve trees for more than 50 years. There is in Canada a network of orchards with improved seeds. We apply the best biotechnological techniques, what we call the somatic embryogenesis, namely a method for the cloning of the best trees. We are using techniques of genetic engineering to improve the trees through gene transplants. At the present time we have in our laboratories spruces with the Bt genes, which enables them to be resistant to the spruce budworm. Moreover, we are able to grow in Canada some tree species such as poplars and larches in 20 years. Our research people and our policy people are presently examining the possibility of planting fast-growing species of trees in a context of climate change, for example.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here this morning with your senior officials.

I'm glad that in response to Mr. Godin you made further reference to the Canada-Costa Rica initiative to try to move the world toward some kind of global convention on forest practices. It seemed to me, in listening to the Sierra Club yesterday and listening to other NGOs—and it's in their brief—that they are not interested in harmonizing or integrating certification systems. It seems to me that Canada, through provincial practices and industries, continues to be demonized by some NGOs, not all of them but some of them, in terms of our forest practices. On the one side, they want to keep the certification system separate. On the other side, Canada, as a world leader in forestry, is trying to be a leader and is being a leader in trying to get a convention. I think you made a good point last year at committee that the federal government should not be in the business of doing certification. That is not our job.

• 0920

In your vision of the future, do you see it as possible that we can get to a point of agreement with both sides—the NGOs, the industry, and all levels of government—with a consistent view, with a unified certification system, not under the federal government's direction but somehow with the federal government pulling the players together under the umbrella of an international forestry accord such as we are trying to lead under the Canada-Costa Rica initiative?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. St. Denis, I don't know that the two absolutely need to be in lockstep together. But the two initiatives are certainly complementary.

With respect to certification, there is a variety of groups and agencies around the world that have been working in this direction for quite some time. Viewed from the Canadian end of the telescope, there are standards being considered by the CSA, the Canadian Standards Association, standards that would fit within the framework of the ISO process. There of course are the international NGO standards by the Forest Stewardship Council, which has its headquarters in Mexico. All of them are—and there are others—aimed in the general direction of more sustainable forest practices, but they are not all consistent. I think it would be very useful if all of us who have the best interests of the world's forests at heart could arrive at a consensus about what the principles applicable to certification should be.

That's very important from the point of view of having a consistent approach in all countries everywhere. That's where you get to the framework of an international legal instrument.

We, meaning Canada, have been at work at this for a long period of time, originally through the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, and then the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests. That led into the work of the Canada-Costa Rica initiative to try to improve the communication; improve the understanding; build the groundwork and the foundation for international consensus about a legally binding instrument that would be applicable worldwide, and applicable to all of us; level the playing field; have common definitions, so that we all knew exactly where we stood and we were measured according to the same yardsticks.

We're taking that case to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in April. We believe we've built some momentum and we've made some progress in convincing most of the rest of the world that this is a good and useful idea. I hope coming out of the sustainable development commission there will be a game plan over the next number of years that can keep the process moving in the very positive direction in which Canada has tried to head it over the last little while.

A common understanding about certification, and an international framework that has legally binding effect—we think both of those accomplishments would be very useful from Canada's point of view and, more importantly, would serve well the integrity of forests worldwide.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, thank you, Mr. Minister, and your officials for being here this morning.

I want to follow up on an answer you gave, Mr. Goodale, with regard to sales of forestry products to other nations, and in particular when people from Europe, for example, come over here and they see our practice and then they have a favourable reaction. I wonder if you could give us any evidence of the actual increased sales or trade that happens as a result of these visits? For example, there was a group that came over last September. Has there been a marked change in attitude in terms of orders placed? What actual concrete evidence do we have that it's indeed true that these have resulted in a shift in dealing with Canada?

• 0925

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Schmidt, I'm not sure if you can directly tie a subsequent successful transaction to a previous visit in relation to Canadian forest practices. But we do have feedback that comes to us from those who have been here and seen it for themselves. After they've had a chance to absorb their visit and take into account everything they've seen and heard, we have had feedback that their views have in fact changed.

I don't have that material with me this morning, but I'd certainly be happy to try to provide it to you so we could track the visit or the other effort that tried to straighten the record or correct the information, and then show how that has had an impact upon, say, a buyer's group, or a media commentator, that sort of thing. I'll try to give that to you subsequent to this meeting to show that this international forestry partnership program does bear fruit.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Minister, because in the final analysis, words are pretty easy to manufacture. I know it was there at the meeting. These people came out of there feeling really good, and that's exactly the feeling we had too. But I want to know what the result was. It's all very well to say this, but I want the contract.

That's one point.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: We'll provide that information to the committee, Mr. Chairman, with the best evidence we've had that shows that these kinds of programs have enabled Canadians to maintain their markets.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I thank you very much, Mr. Minister. It should carry on on a continuing basis, I think.

The other point follows in the direction of the certification question of Mr. St. Denis. It has to do with the multitude of certifying agencies that are growing up all around the world. There is some reason to believe that it might be okay to have a variety of certifying agencies, provided that these certifying agencies are accredited somehow. It seems to me that we have a variety of universities—you yourself, sir, are a graduate of a university, and you know there are some vast differences among them. There are good ones and bad ones. Somebody does something about accrediting universities, so there is a common body of knowledge that apparently is accepted, or rejected, in your particular profession and other professions.

So I'm asking, is there a group that would accredit these certifying agencies? That's the one question.

Secondly, would it not be better to have that accrediting agency, whoever does it, let the demand of the market determine whether in fact that's acceptable, rather than go on the basis of some kind of legal structure that says you'd better do it like this? Then the whole business of enforcement and regulatory structures comes in.

Could you comment on that?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Well, different certification standards, as I think you implied in your question, could be legitimately available for different purposes. There may well be a good reason to have different approaches among different organizations that are pursuing quite different goals and objectives. So I take your point about variations within approaches to certification.

But this issue of the credibility of the certification is an important one. That, at least in part—and I think this was the burden of Mr. St. Denis' question—could be addressed within the context of an international forestry convention. So we would all have a clear understanding of what we're talking about, with some consistency and transparency in the process.

• 0930

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Will that be the focus of this convention?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: It could well be a focus of part of it. We're still working on the input of that and trying to get a common international understanding. But the objective, Mr. Schmidt, would be to clarify definitions and have consistent approaches and ways of measuring progress.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The reason I'm pursuing this to such a degree, though, Mr. Minister, is that this is at the heart of the issue, isn't it? Sustainable forestry practices are the issue. This is what is determining to a large degree import and export of particular products.

I think, Mr. Minister, you said you wanted a consensus between the certain NGOs that have a vested interested in environmental protection and others that want to make money, as if there's some kind of conflict here. It seems to me that if you wanted to build a consensus—and I really appreciate that—isn't an agreement on this particular issue at the heart of that very conflict?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Well, it's certainly a very central issue, Mr. Schmidt. There are other very important ones as well. But if we could ultimately persuade all of the major stakeholders in the forest sector to arrive at a common understanding of what constitutes good, valid, legitimate certification, that would be a major step forward.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Are you going to try?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: We work in that direction every day. Sometimes some of the stakeholders are a little difficult to bring along.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: This is why I'm concerned. If that conference is coming and if that's at the heart of the issue, then why wouldn't this be a major part of the conference?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Are you thinking of the UN meeting in April?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I don't mean to sidestep this at all, Mr. Schmidt, because you're on to a very valid point. But I think the point is perhaps just a little bit premature. What we need to get the world focused on in April is the basic requirement to have a process that could ultimately lead to an international agreement. I don't think we're quite down to the point of detail you're focusing on. I think it's a very important detail, but the first step is to get the world headed down the path of having an agreement. We're still at that stage of trying to move the international community in that direction.

Now, we have many allies and supporters on our side. This has emerged very clearly from the Canada-Costa Rica process over the last year and a half. There are still some countries in the world that are not on side, that would prefer not to have an international agreement. That's the immediate challenge before us now, to get that global consensus that we should have a legally binding international instrument that would give all of us a common set of rules, a common set of definitions, and a level playing field for all that we do in the forestry sector.

Once we can agree on that broad objective, then we get to the point of detail you've referred to. Certainly the detail is a very valid one. If all the measurement tools remain inconsistent, then we won't have the level playing field.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: We won't have consensus, either.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Yes, right. I hear you and I think your point is a very real concern. That's one of the reasons we'd like to have an international agreement, so we could resolve that kind of issue on a basis that we could all celebrate as a success.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The point is made. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think we have a few more minutes. Am I right?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Minister, I know you are a man of action and a hard worker. There are here in Canada communities whose economy is based only on the forest sector. Problems exist both at the international and the national levels. The lumber companies of the Abitibi region came to the conclusion that diesel or gas shortages, or their price increase of the last few months could not entirely be explained by the existing problems at the international level.

• 0935

We know that a few years ago, the federal government had increased the excise tax from 8,5 to 10¢ a liter, because of the deficit. Since we have today a surplus, should the government of Canada lower this tax to 8,5 a liter for the benefit of our lumber companies, our lumber truckers in Canada and in Quebec, as well as of families in general? Everything will be linked-up in the long term.

Last, I would like to name some companies which have the benefit of higher lumber quotas and which damage the system in Canada. There is Hughes Lumber in Richmond Hill, Maxwood in Fort Erie and F.L. Bodogh Lumber in St. Catharines. Those companies do not own a mill and they do not have employees. They buy the lumber and send it to "remans". They do not make investments, whereas again our lumber companies in the Abitibi region are left behind. Go and check those three companies.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, you can answer the first of those two questions if you like, but I think it was more on the side of making a point. On the second of the questions, perhaps you'd like to give us a brief response.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I will take note of the specific company references Mr. St-Julien has made. I don't think it would be appropriate for me at this stage to make any specific references to individual companies. But I will draw your comments, Mr. St-Julien, to the attention of the responsible people within DFAIT and invite them to examine the situation.

I gather you are referring to what you believe are inequities in the way in which the softwood lumber quotas are being applied.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I will ask DFAIT to examine that.

On the broader question of fuel costs and the tax levels you have referred to with regard to diesel, broadly across Canada the level of federal taxation on diesel works out to about 7.9¢ per litre. That's more than the excise tax. There's also GST into that. The excise tax with regard to diesel is only 4¢ a litre, and that has not changed over the course of the last six years. The 8.5¢ you referred to that went up to 10¢ is on gasoline, not on diesel. So there's a distinction between the tax rate on diesel and the tax rate on gasoline.

This winter a collection of factors have come together to be problematic from a consumer's point of view. First of all, there is of course the international impact of OPEC. I would point out that there's another meeting of OPEC coming up within a month or so, and there is some speculation that the OPEC leadership may modify their position. That remains to be seen. Obviously Canada's not a member of OPEC. But there is a meeting in the next little while during which they may change their immediate approach to the supply situation.

The second factor, particularly in the area of the eastern seaboard, was a particularly cold and difficult January, which, quite frankly, overdrew what the industry had expected to be the supply-and-demand situation. The colder temperatures, especially in the Boston and New England area, caused what turned out to be a dislocation in supply and demand. There were also some supply difficulties created in Europe that had a rebounding effect in North America because of changing environmental regulations in Europe that shorted the market, if you like. In any event, the situation is likely to moderate in the period immediately ahead.

• 0940

In terms of government action, there are of course the tax issues you've referred to, and I would make no further comment about that. Tax issues are issues to be dealt with by finance departments, and I would not want to be seen to be commenting on that.

The issue of consumer price regulation is in the hands of the provinces.

The issue of competition is a matter of federal jurisdiction. It has been investigated, and there appears not to be evidence immediately of anything that would constitute anti-competitive behaviour that could be subject to a legal proceeding. There are of course emergency standby provisions when national security is threatened, but that would not appear to be the case at the present time.

What my department has done over time with regard to gas prices is try to find the means by which all of the stakeholders can come together in a thorough analysis of what's going on so that at the very least the consuming public can be thoroughly informed. We've succeeded on that at times in the past. Other times we haven't been able to get the stakeholders to agree on the type of study or how to do it. But we continue the effort to try to make sure this issue is thoroughly ventilated and that all the facts are on the table so that Canadians are completely informed about what goes into a pricing decision and what the consequences are for them.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Just a little second, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Plus tard. I'm glad you made the point, but I want to get on to forestry.

Go on, Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: This is a question that crops up quite a bit with regard to our national parks and the forests in our parks. In many areas there's disease within that forest. There are the fires that take place there and the insects. This makes our parks a little more viable for forest fires. I was wondering if you've done any checking with regard to the selective logging of these types of trees, the blowdowns that are in the park.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Stinson, let me ask Dr. Hardy if he can comment on this. This is jurisdiction that would of course partly be vested in Heritage Canada and Parks Canada, but the scientific expertise is obviously a matter for NRCan.

Dr. Hardy, do you have any comment on this specifically?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Yes, I do. Parks Canada kind of changed its attitude over the years, because when they started out, it was pure conservation and preservation. What happened is that some of these forests have become overgrown and overmatured, and they have become susceptible to a number of insects and diseases and so on. The policy has been changed in the last year where they now encourage natural fires to come to renew the forest like it used to be in the natural cycle. Other than that, we do work with them to provide them with expert advice, and they also have their own capability in terms of forest management. So that's for parks.

For the forests in general, CFS is very active in the design of new control methods, particularly biological methods for insects and diseases, and forest fire management systems, which on a day-to-day basis go from predicting where the next fire will be to predicting the behaviour of a fire once a fire is underway, or looking at the country as a whole and giving the information to move equipment knowing that this part of the country is more susceptible than other parts. So we have been very active in the research part of that.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Stinson, I might add that our Canadian technology in terms of forest firefighting is in demand around the world.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I know that.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: In the United States, Mexico, and Asia, and from this recent mission also in China, Canadians are pretty well respected for how we manage this kind of problem.

• 0945

The Chair: Thank you.

We've gone through an entire round and have five minutes left, so I'd like to give a second round to three people, for maybe about a minute and a half apiece. I'm going to ask you to keep your questions very brief so that we can get a brief answer back.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: In the interest of my creeping paranoia, I know Canada is really a leader in forest management practices and is continually working to improve its situation, yet I see countries that are cutting forests down indiscriminately still, and they seem to find a market for their product. Whereas we get criticized in Europe, and all of a sudden the pressure comes on to stop importing material out of Canada. It seems to me rather out of balance.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Well, it is, Mr. Reed, and that's one of the reasons we advocate the notion of an international forestry convention.

We also find that some of the criticism directed toward Canada can, if you trace it back to its source, often be rather self-serving on the commercial end of the equation and has behind it sometimes a less altruistic motive than the upfront advocates would lead you to believe.

We just need to be proactive in promoting and advancing Canadian interests on the basis of solid information and solid science, and I think we have a compelling case to make.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Canuel.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: My remarks will be very brief, Mr. Minister. I would like someone to make a note of the injustice suffered by Boisaco, in Sacré-Coeur, and to make a check.

Do you intend to continue the model forest program? As indicated by my colleague, it is very important to invest in our forests in Canada, and more so because there are forest lands in our ridings.

Is it true that the pulp market is saturated? some companies, particularly in Quebec, are telling us that they cannot produce a lot any more because there is already too much pulp.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Hardy would like to answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Mr. Canuel, we have two full years left before we make the assessment of the model forest program, as we always do for the five-year programs, after which we decide to continue at the same speed, at a reduced speed or at an increased speed. I can tell you that the program works very well.

Mr. René Canuel: Are you implementing some others?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: The budget for the current five-year period is totally committed. We may do so in a next budget period.

Mr. René Canuel: I agree.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: I think it is right to say that there is an overcapacity in the pulp production at the world level.

The Chair: I agree. Thank you.

Mr. Godin, for the last question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Someone mentioned the federal budget cuts. My question on monitoring was left unanswered. I asked you whether the government was prepared to invest more in the monitoring of forests.

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: The monitoring, Monsieur Godin, by definition needs to be a joint effort between levels of government, because of the jurisdictional responsibilities. During the process of fighting the deficit, all agencies of the Government of Canada, as you know, absorbed portions of the burden, including NRCan and CFS.

• 0950

Having an adequate knowledge base about our natural resources is exceedingly important for the future. We need the information. We need the science. We need the research. We need the new technology and the technology transfer. I intend to work very vigorously to make sure we have the tools, including the financial resources, available to us to properly manage that very precious Canadian resource base.

I said at the beginning we need to aspire to be nothing less than the smartest country in the world when it comes to the stewardship, the development, the use, and the exporting of resources, including forestry, minerals, energy, and geosciences. That takes the appropriate financial commitment, and that is something I will always work toward.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We'll see on Monday.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister Goodale, to you and your staff.

The meeting is now adjourned to the call of the chair.