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, April 13, 2000

• 1103

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)): I see a quorum. Even if it's not all at the table, it's certainly in the room. I would thank the honourable members for their promptness this morning. It helps a great deal, and we can cover a good deal of interesting ground.

Our order of reference is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of Canadian forest management practices as an international trade issue.

This morning we are going to listen to witnesses from IWA Canada: Neil Menard, 1st vice-president; Darrel Wong, president of Local 2171; and Darol Smith, executive board member, Local 2171. From the Forest Alliance of British Columbia we have Sarah Goodman, media relations manager. Welcome.

You're probably familiar with the process by now. For anyone who isn't, we open it up for a presentation from our witnesses, which would take about 10 minutes, give or take, and then we'll open it up to questions and answers. Hopefully, it's the dialogue that is the very fruitful part of this.

Lady and gentlemen, you are welcome to choose who shall begin and how many of you will make representation.

• 1105

You have delivered to us a briefing paper in both official languages, and we thank you for that. Please feel free to proceed.

Mr. Neil Menard (1st Vice-President, Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada): Thank you, Julian. Good morning, honourable members.

You have introduced our group, Julian, but I would like to do it again. With me is Sarah Goodman from the alliance. Sarah is the chair of the industry committee on Forest Stewardship Council certification. I'm very much involved in that particular process, and Sarah will be touching on that this morning in our presentation.

Darrel Wong is the president of Local 2171, Vancouver Island, north coast, Charlottes, which includes the area where this particular issue is happening right now, the mid-coast Great Bear rain forest. Darol Smith is the executive board member from that particular area, the mid-coast, which we say is the area that's dubbed the Great Bear rain forest. I'm Neil Menard, and I'm the 1st vice-president for IWA Canada.

At the outset we want to thank you for the opportunity to come here today to share our thoughts with you and to hopefully convince you to give us some assistance in a number of ways. Very importantly, we believe this is a national issue, with the centre of it being on Vancouver Island. We are asking you to support our request for financial assistance to put a campaign together. As a national, we believe it does have an effect right across the country.

We appeared before you in November 1998 and presented two briefs, and I believe you have both of them. You came to visit us in 1999, and we toured you through the central coast and part of the south Cariboo in the northern interior to give you a first-hand or bird's-eye view of what was happening. The CFCI, which is the coastal forest conservation initiative, is something we're very much involved in.

There were some points in the brief that was given to you in 1998, which I hope most of you have. Some of the key points in that included the issue in reference to great national importance, which was presented by Darrel Wong at that particular time, requesting your assistance in countering the activities that were happening at that time and requesting that you get involved with this as early as possible. We requested that the federal government do more to assist the people in resource-dependent communities whose livelihoods are really threatened by these campaigns throughout the country. It talked to you about the amount of wood that was commercially used in that particular area and across this country.

I think the most important point that Darrel Wong made at that time was to bear in mind that we are here asking for your assistance with a problem that goes far beyond the one region. It also affects the total country. It talked to you about the amount of money that was generated by our industry in this country, from Vancouver Island out to Newfoundland, and the importance of hanging onto this industry, and rather than shrinking, working with us to make it grow. We think we can make it grow.

We also believe we have done an excellent job of changing the way in which we harvest and do silviculture and replant and look after our forests at this time.

There were also eight points proposed for action in that particular brief, and we would ask you to have a look at those.

• 1110

In 1999 again we made a submission. We talked about the importance of this particular issue that's happening right across this country. We would ask you to have a look at that, because we believe there are some very important points in that particular initiative as well.

One of the points in the 1999 submission to your brief was the reference to the federal-provincial division of powers. It rules out direct federal involvement in management of our lands and forests, but it's still important for Ottawa to play a role. That's one of the reasons—the reason, in fact—we're here today. So we do need your support with that.

We have also done another draft, which we handed out to some of the honourable members yesterday. We have a couple of extra copies here. I learned something yesterday—that is, when you do that, they need to be in French and English. We apologize for that. I take full responsibility. However, if it's requested, we will make sure that both those documents get to you in both languages as soon as possible. We do apologize.

The brief we've given you highlights the importance to Darrel's members and Darol's local union of this initiative to ask you for your assistance. It's very important to us. We really do need you to support us, because we believe it is a national issue.

As well, as most of you are aware, we've presented you with a fairly comprehensive marketing initiative for our products in this country. We hope that at some point in time you will assist us with that, because we believe we make the best products there are in this industry and that go throughout the world. We want to continue to get our products into those marketplaces.

We need to do an on-the-ground job with our members to convince the rest of the world that we do have a product, we do have a government that supports us federally, and that in those provinces that are predominantly in the same industry they will assist us with that.

Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to share with you today. We put forward this particular initiative and we would ask you to look at the importance of it, the seriousness of it, and to assist us whenever you can. I thank you for that opportunity on behalf of IWA Canada.

I would now turn it over to Darrel.

Mr. Darrel Wong (President, Local 2171, Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada): Thank you, Neil.

Neil has outlined the past history of what brought us here again. We've actually been to Ottawa on three occasions. This will be our second time making a presentation in front of this body.

We do appreciate the fact that you took the time to come out to the central coast, which is referred to by some people as the Great Bear rain forest. It in fact is not; it is the central coast of British Columbia.

I believe that tour was of real benefit to the members we represent and the communities in which our members live. It sent a really clear message that the people from this committee actually do care about the issues and are prepared to take the time to go and see for themselves what the real story is and what the truth is. We really do appreciate you doing that.

This issue, for me, is not only an issue for which I have responsibility, I think, as a local union president, to take forward; it's also a personal issue. I grew up working in the forest industry, and my family still works in the industry. The friends I spend my time with all work in the industry, and obviously the members I represent work there.

The package we sent to you is entitled “Good Wood: From Us to You—Delivering the human face of Canadian forestry to the international market...”. We're specifically asking for your assistance in training some of our members, training some of the mayors in the communities, and training some of the first nations people, and then including industry and government in terms of going to the international marketplace and explaining to that marketplace the changes that have taken place in the forests of British Columbia.

• 1115

There have been dramatic changes. We now have some of the highest standards of environmental forestry anywhere in the world, and yet an international boycott of our products is having a direct impact on the people we represent and on the communities in which we live.

With both federal-provincial and industry funding, we believe we can take the people who live and work in the forests in British Columbia out to the international marketplace to tell the entire, true story of what really is taking place. We can outline to them the changes that have taken place over the last 10 to 15 years. In fact, we believe the people in the marketplace, when they see and talk to the people who are there, will have more of an understanding of our issues. They'll perhaps be more inclined to come out and see for themselves the good work we're actually doing.

We are proud of all of the improvements that have taken place in forests. As forest workers and people in those communities, our survival depends on the survival of those forests. We have been taking care of the forests. In fact, a significant number of our members spend a great deal of their time working on ensuring that fish streams are rehabilitated. We have done an enormous amount of work in that area and are making significant progress.

Our plan is fairly clear. We believe we need a large enough group to be able to hit large numbers of communities around the world. In order to do that, we need the funding to get that group together. We think the Canadian government has the ability to do some really good work and is doing some good work on this issue. But we believe the people who work there and live there also can have a very good impact. We believe the people most affected by the decisions probably have the emotional attachment to it such that they can go out and sell that story.

What we have, as I said, is superior forest management by people on the ground, people who are highly skilled and have strong environmental experience and views. These people are generators of wood products, stewards of the forest, and innovators of technologically and scientifically advanced environmental practices.

The type of logging practices we had ten years ago you don't see any more. You may not have seen these ads, but in British Columbia there are full-page ads in The Vancouver Sun and in The Province, some of our major papers out there, that show old-style clear-cuts. Well, quite frankly, we don't have old-style clear-cuts any more. The largest clear-cuts we have are less than 40 hectares. We're doing a lot of innovative-type logging practices.

We believe the people who are actually physically doing that work are probably the ones who can tell that story the best.

Gerry Furney is the mayor of Port McNeil, a community at the north end of the island. Some of you here may know him. He was at some of the meetings we had at the north end of the island. He was going to be here but unfortunately couldn't make it. He wanted to tell the story from the communities. Sarah is going to deal with that perhaps a bit more.

What I do want to say is that this is not an issue of just the IWA. Even though we have three people sitting here from the IWA, and Sarah from the communities from the Forest Alliance, it is not just us. A large number of people support us coming here. Two of the significant forest companies from the central coast, Western Forest Products and International Forest Products, were here with us the last time. They are supporting us being here again, as are the mayors and some of the first nations people we spoke to.

Why do we need this program? We can provide, as I say, an honest, balanced, and factual presentation of the current practices. We have personal pride in our environmental stewardship. We have a grassroots approach, which we believe is critical, that complements all of the programs you're currently doing as well as provincial programs. All we need is the funding in order to be able to move it ahead.

I'm not going to say anything more than that at this point, other than to say the fire is burning in British Columbia, and I think that smoke is coming all the way across this country. What I mean by that is we're being attacked right now, and we have a good story to tell. We should have the opportunity to do that so that the impact doesn't hit you the same as it's hitting us.

• 1120

Sarah.

Ms. Sarah Goodman (Media Relations Manager, Forest Alliance of British Columbia): Just for the record, it's Sarah Goodman.

I'm delighted to be here, and I'm particularly pleased to be in the company of my labour friends who are so deeply and personally committed to ensuring our forest communities have the opportunity to tell their story to the world.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Forest Alliance, we are an industry-supported coalition—and are supported by 15 major forest companies in British Columbia—of 10,000 British Columbians and 300 organizations, including the IWA, many communities, first nations, and others.

Our goal as a communications organization is to promote a balance between environmental, social, and economic values in the management of B.C.'s forest resource.

In my role at the alliance, I'm heavily involved in certification and chair an industry committee on Forest Stewardship Council certification. I'm very proud to say that last year the alliance became the first industry-supported association in the world to apply for FSC membership. We also actively promote ISO and CSA certification.

I'm also very pleased to say that B.C. companies are taking a proactive role in certification, with virtually every major company in the province committed to achieving some form of certification. Today there are already six companies that have achieved certification of one form or another, and that's a significant step. At this time last year there weren't any certifications in B.C.

As you heard from Home Depot's Annette Verschuren, there is increasing market interest in certified products. My organization has publicly commended the Home Depot, Centex, and other companies for adopting policies that promote good forest management.

That said, Ms. Verschuren's testimony illustrates the need for a stronger effort at the international level to communicate to our customers the basic facts about Canadian forestry and our work on certification. For example, Ms. Verschuren suggested that FSC is the only system with independent third-party audits. The reality is that CSA also has third-party audits, and while ISO offers self-declaration audits, every ISO certification in British Columbia to date has been the result of an independent third-party audit.

As Ms. Verschuren's statements illustrate, FSC is the strongest system when it comes to communications and marketing. I'll point to this week's Time magazine with a story on FSC certification—and this isn't the first to appear. Within this article there are a number of factual errors that are of great concern, one being that it says that FSC certification precludes the certification of old-growth forest products. So that is one error that seems to be out in the marketplace consistently.

The FSC has been very successful in getting its message out; however, the CSA is equally as rigorous a system for on-the-ground performance and exceeds the FSC in terms of public participation requirements.

Let's be clear, certification is in its infancy, and all three systems have merit and should be encouraged by stakeholders and governments of all levels.

Perhaps more crucial than this issue is the issue raised by Ms. Verschuren's statistic that 11% of Home Depot's shareholders recently voted in favour of the company halting its purchase of old-growth forest products. There isn't a single Canadian anywhere in this country who shouldn't be absolutely terrified by this statistic, and the threat of it growing to a larger number as the anti-old-growth campaign continues to mount. Considering about three-quarters of Canada's forests are old growth, it would be absolutely devastating if this campaign enjoyed success.

Because Canada is home to 10% of the world's forests, we have a responsibility to be the stewards of these forests in a way that is respectful of their global ecological significance. That said, it is one thing for companies and workers to commit to best practices and continual improvement. It is also quite reasonable to develop a comprehensive network of parks that provide representation for a full spectrum of ecosystems. But it is quite another thing to seek a massive reallocation of land use based on a classification like old growth.

The bottom line in an anti-old-growth campaign is an anti-Canada campaign. It is up to us to give Home Depot, its shareholders, and others the tools they need to work constructively with environmentalists who are sincerely interested in promoting good practices through collaborative efforts.

• 1125

We also need to give them the tools to reject the element of the activist community who refuse to focus on solutions or constructive engagement of other stakeholders. Part of this means delivering on the ground through certification and part of this means ensuring misinformation is corrected, including misinformation that appears in Time magazine. More than that, we need to proactively ensure the world is fully aware of the cold, hard, and impressive facts about Canadian forest management. The alternative is certain loss of market share and heavy impacts on communities, workers, and families.

Just to illustrate my point, consider this statistic: last year, B.C. exported about $7.6 billion worth of solid wood products to the U.S. The majority of these products are used in home construction. As you know, environmentalists are targeting home improvement retailers and home builders. If this campaign, this anti-old-growth campaign, results in the loss of even 1% of B.C.'s solid wood shipments to the U.S., that is a loss of $76 million a year—1%.

Today, we are asking you to support us in a project that would cost the federal government less than half a million dollars. We have gone to industry and they are committed through the Forest Alliance to funding us. We are also looking to the provincial government through Forest Renewal BC, and we are in discussions with them and they appear to be going quite positively.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): What is the funding for?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: The project before you that Darrel was discussing.

Mr. Darrel Wong: It's putting together a group of 20 people from industry, from labour, from communities, from first nations, to go out and tell the story of what in fact we're doing in the province of British Columbia with regard to forestry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): We'll get into that when the witnesses are finished, Mr. Bélair.

Please carry on.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: I will conclude by saying I hope that what we're proposing here—and we'll go into it a bit more—is only one small piece of the bigger puzzle. I believe there's a strong business case for immediate action. The plan has enormous stakeholder support, and I truly believe if this pilot is given a chance and the people involved in this pilot are given a chance, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.

Over to Darol Smith.

Mr. Darol Smith (Executive Board Member, Local 2171, Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Darol Smith. I'm an Interfor employee, an hourly employee, and an executive board member of IWA Canada, Local 2171. I've worked in the forest industry in British Columbia for well over 20 years, in the mid-coast of British Columbia. Six generations of my family have earned their living harvesting Canada's timber. I'm proud to say that my son is a mid-coast forest worker.

When the parliamentary standing committee on natural resources toured B.C.'s mid-coast in May of 1999, I believe we demonstrated that B.C.'s forest practices are amongst the best in the world. During the public hearings in Vancouver after the tour, I requested that the committee recommend that forest workers be used as part of a Team Canada approach to promote the forest product industry. I'm here today to follow up on that concept.

Thank you for inviting me here to testify, and I'm looking forward to a positive response to our proposals. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you. We have used up a fair bit of time with the witnesses, but I'm sure everyone found it very intriguing and interesting. I thought it would be best to hear everything they had to deliver to us.

Normally we'd go to the official opposition, then across the road to the government side, and back to the opposition. Does anyone in the official opposition wish to start? Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): You have five minutes.

Mr. John Duncan: For starters, I'd like to start with this pilot program, because it's the main thing that's being promoted here. This is not just an academic concept, as I understand it. Some of the personalities who would be involved in this are already contemplated. We met some of them as a committee in May, I believe, at some of the sites. That's a fair statement?

• 1130

Mr. Darrel Wong: Yes, it is. Some of the first nations people are very involved. We also have some people who we've had working as environmental trainers; for example, with Interfor we negotiated a number of years ago environmental joint trainers through this joint program we've had. They're up to speed on all of the environmental standards. They're part of the certification processes and they have some real ability. One of the first nations people you met from the Heiltsuk is very interested in being involved in this as well. It's really a grassroots issue.

Mr. John Duncan: Thanks.

I'd like to pursue, Sarah, your organization's focus for a second. You describe your organization as the only one in Canada dedicated to tracking the environmental non-government operations in terms of what their activities are. Is that a true characterization?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: That's correct, yes.

Mr. John Duncan: I wonder if you could give the committee a sense of what you believe is happening in terms of flow of money from U.S. sources into the Canadian campaign, in terms of forest activities.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: It's very difficult to track exactly how much money is flowing in. We have done quite a bit of research into U.S. foundation money, and in a period of about two years, funnelled directly into the B.C. campaign—and I apologize, I don't have the stats for across Canada, but obviously B.C. has been the main focus to date—we're looking at about $13.5 million U.S.

Mr. John Duncan: Would that be 1998 and 1999?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: It might be 1997 and 1998.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a specific question for you. You're the person in British Columbia who's been tasked by the industry as leading the certification effort. Am I correct?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: There are different committees and I chair one particular committee. There is another group of people who are involved directly in the regional standards process, and I would say they're more integral, but certainly I'm playing a key role.

Mr. John Duncan: Right.

Right now, Greenpeace, for example, is a strong advocate for the Forest Stewardship Council—

Ms. Sarah Goodman: That's right. They're a member.

Mr. John Duncan: —for the FSC process. What is or has been Greenpeace's response to those B.C. companies in terms of FSC?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: On the one hand, Greenpeace is lobbying companies and buyers' groups around the world to only purchase or move towards exclusive purchasing of products that are FSC certified. On the other hand, when the first major forestry company in British Columbia announced that they would be seeking FSC certification, Greenpeace wrote an indicative assessment and has also said they aren't very comfortable with companies going ahead and getting FSC certified in B.C. until we have a regional standard in place. But that will be at least two years. So companies are caught in a catch-22 situation in terms of the Greenpeace situation.

Mr. John Duncan: But very recently there have been at least two companies that have received some FSC certification.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: J.D. Irving received FSC certification in the Maritimes, and that, as you've heard in other testimony, has been contested by, I believe, the Sierra Club.

Mr. John Duncan: But in a B.C. context, do we not now have two—

Ms. Sarah Goodman: We have two small woodlots that have already been FSC certified and there are two major forest companies—Western Forest Products and Lignum Ltd.—that have undergone FSC audits. Then there's one other smaller one, TIMFOR Contractors, that has undergone an FSC audit.

Mr. John Duncan: And some of that will involve old growth, correct?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Absolutely.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): I have a question to follow up on this. Do we have time?

• 1135

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): With respect, normally we move—

Mr. John Duncan: It's just within the five minutes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Well, the five minutes has expired.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. Well, we can come back.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Mr. Bélair.

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

Welcome to the committee. I have a few brief questions.

With regard to the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, do you somehow sit on a subcommittee of this council?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: I don't know.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: You don't know...

Mr. Darrel Wong: No, we do not.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: So what is your relationship with the Government of Canada? Do you have some kind of tie-in with the Government of Canada?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Our chairman, Jack Munro, sits on the FSAC committee, obviously a very important—

A voice: The Forest Sector Advisory Council committee.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Right. We share quite a close relationship with Doug Ketcheson and Claude Leger of the IFPP's programs, and with Jacques Carette. So there's a dialogue that definitely occurs. All of these individuals have been quite supportive of our efforts.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: The point I'm getting at is to what extent your organizations are both willing to participate in an international campaign to counter the offensive led by Greenpeace and others.

Mr. Darrel Wong: I'd like to answer that too. Just for the record, Dave Haggard, our national president, also sits on the FSC, as I understand it.

We first came here in June 1998—just Darol and myself, to start off—saying we wanted to be involved in counteracting the international campaign against B.C. forest products. We were told at that time to come back with some people from the industry because a local union all by itself in British Columbia didn't really have the right focus.

We came back in November with International Forest Products, with Western Forest Products, and with the support of the Forest Alliance, which did a fair amount of the work in putting the documents and that together. We then jointly requested your committee to come out and see exactly what we do. You did that, and we are absolutely in your debt for doing that.

We then had the mayor of Port McNeill, who was going to be with us today but unfortunately couldn't make it. We also had Western Forest Products and InterFor, which both were going to send people here today. Again, unfortunately they were not able to make it, but they are supporting this trip.

So in fact we are here today to say that we haven't given up on our initial plan from June 1998. We want to be involved in combatting the international campaign against B.C. and Canadian forest products. We want our members and our communities to be involved. We want the first nations in that area to be involved. We think we have a story to tell. We have the truth to tell and we just want the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Given that Greenpeace and others will engage very soon—if it has not started already—on a discrediting campaign against Canada and our forest practices and that they have set aside $20 million for this, what should the Government of Canada do to counter this, in your view?

Mr. Neil Menard: Mr. Chairman, first of all, as Darrel has said, the fire's in British Columbia but the smoke is going to roll across the country. As a national organization, we have been very much involved across Canada and the United States. We sit on the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers, which is an international organization, in Europe. We've done a lot of work in putting our position forward to that particular group, so we think that as a national organization we just...

The money is important. The people are important. As a country, we have to look at the size of our industry. I think Darrel said it as well: it isn't just the jobs that we're concerned about but the effect it's going to have on this country economically. As a union, we're spending a lot of money annually—and we're not a wealthy union—combatting this. We can't do it alone. We need your assistance. We need the industry's assistance to do this.

Mr. Darol Smith: Just to add to what Neil said, you talked about a $20-million campaign. That's a lot of money. We're aware of that.

• 1140

We also know that the tours the government runs in the international partnership program have been very successful. We encourage the government to continue that. We're very happy to see that this committee has recommended that. We also know that when people come over here and talk to workers and first nations, they gravitate towards us, and we have a great story to tell.

This pilot project we were talking about here costs under half a million dollars, but we think we can come back to you at a later date and show you the proof that what we're talking to you about here today really works. Probably at that time we'll be asking the provincial government, the companies, and the federal government for a lot more money, because this is a process that's going to have to continue.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much.

This is a question for Ms. Goodman. Half a million dollars is obviously not enough to counter an offensive of $20 million. You're talking about a pilot project. Who do you plan to include? Everybody... Do you plan to include governments, the industry, and the environmentalists too? Because it's very small—

Ms. Sarah Goodman: First I want to speak to the broader issue. Government has always told industry to get its stuff together, that it's industry's problem, that industry should take care of its house first and then government would help out. So even as we speak today, there are groups of forest industry associations, including COFI, ourselves, the IWA, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, and the Canadian Wood Council—we're all getting together and talking about a broad strategy, but in the meantime, we need some smaller pieces that can get rolling right away. So this plan is actually a million-dollar plan. We're looking for one-third federal government funding, one-third provincial funding, and one-third industry funding.

Now I'm sure any one of these groups could pony up all of that money on their own, but we think it's very important that all of the players are at the table.

So to answer your question more specifically, we are looking at including first nations, workers, community leaders, academics, foresters, and biologists. It would be tailored to the market, whereas in Japan they're more receptive to academics and business people. The teams would be weighted differently.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Are you talking to members of the committee on your application...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Mr. Bélair—

Ms. Sarah Goodman: We haven't put forward a formal application. We're asking you to support the principle of this document.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Mr. Bélair, I'll give you a second round.

I have to go now to Mr. Godin.

Mr. Darol Smith: Can I just add to what Sarah said? I think it's critical that we have the support of the federal government, because we need the facilities that Canada has around the world to help us in this, like our embassy staff—

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's why I wanted you to say that—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): No, that's okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Did I misname?

[Translation]

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Gentlemen, Madam, thank you for coming here this morning. Your international-level initiative which would involve all forestry sector stakeholders, is a positive step, in my view. However, like Mr. Bélair, I too have some questions about cost. An initiative on such a grand scale would normally be a fairly expensive undertaking. Yesterday, we spoke with a departmental official who informed us that this department's entire communications budget was only $800,000, not a large sum of money with which to mount an international campaign. In the meantime, the federal government is spending a great deal on communications, particularly in Quebec. Perhaps it could take a sizeable chunk of that money and invest in an international campaign to defend the forest industry. This may be one avenue worth exploring.

I was a little late getting here and people who are late are always in the dark. I would imagine that you referred to the agreement in principle calling for the status quo. Could you bring me up to speed on this quickly? What exactly are the terms and ramifications of this agreement?

• 1145

[English]

Mr. Darrel Wong: Can I start that off?

The first point was on the initiative being a small one, and in fact the first initiative we're here today to talk about is a $1.1 million pilot program. But the national union, along with the forest industry, actually have a process they've applied for through the federal government for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400 million, talking about a marketing strategy, not only dealing with the environmental issue but also particularly dealing with opening up new access markets into India, China, and other parts of the world. So that's one of the processes.

Second, we as a local union, as well as the national and the alliance and the community—I have a document from the Mayor of Port McNeill, Gerry Furney—have asked FRBC for $20 million. We've also sent a letter in to FRBC supporting that document but saying the industry itself should match that $20 million figure.

The difficulty is where we're coming from is somewhat different, only to the extent that we want to use grassroots people who are there in the communities and can tell the story. Asking for $20 million or $40 million or $100 million or $400 million is a longer and more difficult process, so we believe if we can get the smaller process started as a pilot project, we'll be able to show the proof of the benefits that come out of that. Then we'll hopefully be able to extend this into a larger program. That's in answer to the first point you raised.

The second issue you raised is the coast forest conservation initiative, which is a draft document that has been put together by the forest industry and environmentalists. In my opinion, that is an example of crisis management. There's an absolutely huge international campaign targeted at the central coast of British Columbia, which is referred to as the Great Bear rain forest. In fact what has happened is international environmental organizations are specifically targeting companies that work in that area, and in their campaign literature around the world they're saying that company is a bad company because it logs in the Great Bear rain forest.

So this initiative of standing down for eighteen months I think is a reaction to an extremely powerful body on an international boycott. And I, quite frankly, don't support it. I don't think it's the right way of doing things. I don't believe shutting down the forests of British Columbia is the way to deal with an international market issue.

I actually am of the opinion that what we should be doing is proving to people what we're doing is good. So we've asked the industry and the national union has asked the industry to stand down on that agreement for a period of ninety days while we come up with alternative proposals to move forward to combat this issue.

The impact of the CFCI proposal would mean thousands of our members and people in communities would be put out of work for an extended period of time. I don't think that's the response we need. We're doing a good job. All we have to do is show people and explain to them what we're doing. We have the best practices in the world, and quite frankly we have nothing to be ashamed of. We do a good job. We just need people to know that.

Mr. Darol Smith: Just to follow up on your first question with regard to the small amount of money being spent on this pilot project, it is really a small amount of money, but they're probably the best-spent dollars Canada could invest. The project the way we're talking about it would be in B.C., but it would benefit every province in Canada. We intend to use this as a blueprint, and any province that has a similar type of problem can just roll their statistics and their information into this. So it will be a major benefit.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you very much.

Monsieur Cardin, will you accept a second round?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I just want to say one thing. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I didn't say that this was a small program. I believe in what you're trying to accomplish and all I said was that you would need more money to carry out this initiative and that the federal government should be able to help you out in some way.

• 1150

[English]

Mr. Darol Smith: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the delegation for being here.

Will there be a second round? I have a couple of questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): We're going to try. I'm trying to be as strict as I can here, within reason.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I want to talk about two separate areas: certification and also your proposal. I'll do the proposal first, and then on the second round I'll come to certification.

I had the benefit of having a chance to chat with the group earlier in the week, but for the record it's important to talk about some of the things that came up then.

Have you developed the proposal to the point of a business plan? For example, what if you were asked how the training is done? Where in the world would you be sending people, at what time of year, to what conventions, to what meetings? Would it be one person, two, or three? What would be the language requirements? Would you have an Internet backup to all of this? A lot of the Greenpeace stuff is fomented and encouraged through the Internet. Would there be Internet support for that?

Should the pilot be regional for starters, and then if it works, expanded nationally, or should it start nationally and involve other old-growth areas in the boreal forest—for example, in my area of northern Ontario?

As I say, there's no question the message has to get out. It's difficult to measure how effectively it is getting out. The federal government has participated with the provinces in the international forestry partnership program, and I believe that will, to a significant extent, continue.

The business plan would help make a comparison to what happens now. For example, you can measure to a degree how effective the visitor program has been, because you're proposing the opposite of that: to send visitors somewhere else. So if you have to answer detailed questions such as that, are you at the point of a business plan that can deal with that?

Mr. Darrel Wong: We have the basis of a plan put together, we have a budget established for it, and we have areas that we believe, through research, we should be targeting specifically, because of the markets we actually sell our products to. So we have a fair amount of detail done, but we don't have the entire document finalized to the extent of saying this individual is going to be the specific trainer for that particular individual. But it would take us a very short period of time to get there, if we had the actual funding in place to be able to do that.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I only asked that to see where you are in the maturation or the development of the proposal. But what about the Internet? Is there a website for the Forest Alliance?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Essentially, because we're dealing with a group of fifteen to twenty stakeholders, we do think it would be probably the best approach to start it within B.C. using B.C. stakeholders and then expand out, because it is just a test pilot. Obviously you can only reach so many people through a Team Canada trade mission, so the idea would be to supplement that with virtual forest tours on CD-ROM, Internet, and develop other communications materials that can be distributed more widely but do some branding around the human faces issue.

So it wouldn't strictly be trade missions; there's also a communications program.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Because in support of the visitor program, you want to go out.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: We want to go out.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It involves people and information, and that does require facility in other languages as well, because a lot of the misinformation is not only in the markets but in markets with a different language.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Within that document we have things such as translation, media relations training, and all those types of things.

We have in fact talked to both Claude Leger of IFPP and the provincial government. Originally we had put in hosting tours, and through talking to specifically the provincial government, we've taken that out, because they've said we can provide them with lists of individuals we think should be on those tours. That way we're trying to feed into already existing programs so that there isn't overlap.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: So you're hoping the committee can support the idea in principle. I'm sure there will be very good discussion. There's no question that we need to get the message out.

• 1155

I'd like to mention in passing, before going back to the opposition—because I think we'll come back to it later, Mr. Chair—that there's a project in the mining industry called the Great Canadian Mining Show. The research is out of my riding; I have a history of mining in my riding as well. The idea of that program is education. Mining has its own unique problems, and you have some non-tariff trade barrier issues too, such as the nickel cadmium batteries in Europe.

I just encourage you to look at the Great Canadian Mining Show. It has a very positive, pleasant, attractive name, but it's a vehicle that is being developed by the mining industry with a multi-stakeholder partnership to deal with some of their own issues. So it's just another example.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you, Mr. St. Denis. You're well over the time.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'll come back later. Thank you.

Mr. Neil Menard: If I could respond very briefly, we believe it's more important to take the message over there than it is to continue the message here. We believe Canadians are now very understanding of what's happening, so we want to get the message over there and fight the fire on the front lines.

Mr. Darol Smith: I would just add to that some of the specifics. You remember that when you toured the area, Brent, Robert Germyn was one of the first nations people who testified before this committee. He's a very articulate individual. Last week I had a very good conversation with Robert Germyn. He's supporting this proposal and is prepared to go abroad as a team member.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you.

Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: First of all, I'd like to welcome our witnesses from British Columbia.

I'm sure we'll have many questions for you. Your request is clear. You would like the federal government to provide some financial assistance to help you put together a campaign to counter the other campaign being waged against your industry. I think that's clear and a decision will have to made about this.

I have to leave you because I have some other commitments. However, I do have a final question for you. You stated, as did Home Depot, that Irving had received FSC certification. Is that correct?

[English]

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Have industry people in British Columbia met with Irving representatives to find out how they went about getting FSC certification? Was the government of New Brunswick involved? I'm concerned about this situation. Irving was granted FSC certification, but no one else in Canada has, or maybe only a handful of players. Would it be possible to work together with the federal government, which could coordinate these efforts, to find an acceptable solution to this problem? I would appreciate your comments.

[English]

Ms. Sarah Goodman: We have talked with Irving. In February, I went to the Maritimes specifically to find out what was happening with that standard, given all the controversy over Irving's certificate and then pulling out of FSC and so forth. So we are trying to collaborate and ensure that the process in British Columbia goes better than the process went in the Maritimes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It was a headache.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: To date we're quite confident that the process is open and transparent. There's broad stakeholder participation and so forth.

I think you were trying to ask whether there's some way of bringing all these different certification groups together. In the world today there are about 100 certification schemes. Certification originally was intended to improve forest management, but to also provide a tool for consumers to be able to easily distinguish what is a good forest product and what isn't.

Right now certification is barely in its infancy. We think these groups are going to come together over time, but it's going to take a while. In the meantime, we take the position that there should be no monopoly. We think we should encourage the development of all standards and really assess the standards, not on how good their marketing plans are but on what is achieved on the ground.

• 1200

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a final note, I travelled to British Columbia last year, to Bella Coola and to all of these locations. All committee members made the trip. I found BC's forestry practices to be truly extraordinary compared to what is done in other regions and I wanted to congratulate you on your efforts. Keep up the good work. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of issues to jam into five minutes. I'm not very good at that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): We'll have time for a second round, we hope.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

First of all, I'd like to thank all the members for coming here and certainly to thank you for the assistance you gave us and the tour last spring. It was very informative for a lot of our members. We have way too many members of Parliament who think a choker is something that goes around your neck. That's a real problem. Any time we can educate anyone on forestry practices and marketing processes, but especially forest practices, it's important.

I think there's a question that's begging to be asked here, and that's about the whole educational process of what you're talking about. That's exactly what it is. Sarah answered part of that question in answering John's question.

The other issue that's begging to be asked is that you're seeking a third of $1.1 million, which is not a lot of money to get something like this off the ground. It's something that has to be done. The federal government has always been engaged in marketing Canadian forest products and Canadian products in the offshore, internationally. You're facing a major campaign by the Sierra Clubs, the Greenpeaces, the environmental organizations of the world.

How many dollars do we already put into those organizations in Canada? Do you have any idea of federal government dollars that go directly to those organizations now? Certainly the Ecology Action Centre in Nova Scotia is a recipient of provincial and federal dollars. Generally, those organizations receive funding from the federal government already. Do you have any idea what those numbers are?

Mr. Darol Smith: Can I just make a comment on that? We're well aware of the charitable status of a lot of these organizations. This is one of the things we have a big problem with. It appears that forest workers, through their tax contributions, are being forced to subsidize efforts to put them on welfare lines. We have a big concern about that in certain areas.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Are there actual federal dollars funnelled directly to any of these agencies that you're aware of? Maybe that's something we could seek through the committee as well.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: We track mostly the major environmental groups like Greenpeace and others with that type of stature, and as far as I'm aware, there isn't federal funding going to those. I would certainly encourage the committee to ensure that is the case.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The other point I'd like to raise has been talked about in generalities here. This is not just in B.C. You say the fire is in B.C. but the smoke's blowing across the country. Well, the fire's on both coasts and it's been there for a long time. We all face the Home Depots of this world. If we can't market to Home Depot or to other organizations in the U.S., since we're already shut out of Europe for a lot of forest products, it seriously curtails what our mills on the east coast, in New Brunswick and Quebec and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, are able to do. So it's an issue. As far as the whole sustainability part of it and the environmental part of it, we know that.

The other issue that's coming right behind this is the endangered species legislation. I'm wondering if you had any comments on that while you're here.

Mr. Neil Menard: I'd better leave that one alone for this time around.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's probably a good idea.

Mr. Neil Menard: It's a good question but for another day.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just flag it.

Mr. Neil Menard: Another day, Gerald. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you very much, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Chatters, did you want to get in on this?

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): No, that's okay.

The Chair: We'll start the second round now with Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm going to go back to certification again, Sarah. Would it be fair to say that you think it's a healthy thing to have competition for certification standards right now?

• 1205

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Absolutely. Certification is fundamentally a voluntary market access tool, so it is completely absurd and opposed to the basis of certification to have a monopoly. We absolutely need to encourage a whole range of systems, but it does cause a lot of confusion in the marketplace, and that needs to be addressed.

Mr. John Duncan: So how do you plan to convince retailers such as Home Depot that competition in certification is a good idea?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: I read Annette Verschuren's transcript, and our organization has visited on a number of occasions with Home Depot, both in Canada and at the Atlanta head office. In fact, we attended the FSC general assembly in Oaxaca where Home Depot sent ten company officials. So they're taking FSC very seriously.

They said FSC was their preference, but we also think that underlying their explicit statement of preference for FSC is a general recognition among a lot of companies—including Centex, a $5.3 billion home builder in the U.S. that put out an announcement two weeks ago—that certification of all types is what's preferred. So they may be saying FSC, but I think they want to see progress, period, and we certainly can deliver that.

Mr. John Duncan: The statement given here by the representative from Home Depot had some misconceptions about the other certification systems in terms of their application, such as the FSC was the only one with a third-party audit. Will your organization be writing to let her know that she was under a misconception?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Yes, we certainly will. One of the biggest challenges is that the CSA is not a marketing organization, so they've been very poor at getting their message out. There are a lot of people within industry—in labour, associations, and so forth—who are looking at how that can be addressed to ensure there is appropriate information out there for customers.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm going to go back now to the pilot project, the prototype, whatever we're going to call it. It has been with the bureaucracy and the minister now since October.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: No. This project is the $1 million project. The one I believe Neil was referencing was a $450 million IWA-COFI plan. Is that correct, Neil?

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, so it would be fair to say there's been no response to date on this project, but there have been some discussions on the other proposal. Can you give us a flavour of what the feedback from government has been?

Mr. Neil Menard: Do you mean on the marketing proposal?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

Mr. Neil Menard: Yes, we can. In my briefing notes here I have put forward the marketing plan to the federal government. It has not been funded, but hope springs eternal.

Because of what we're doing here and where our markets go, we wanted to mention that today because this is on a national basis, but nothing has been responded to. They took it from the original number down to a smaller number. Dave Haggard and some of our people from the IWA, COFI, and whatnot are still talking with the federal government about this particular program.

Mr. John Duncan: But that now becomes step two. This proposal is now viewed as step one, am I correct?

Mr. Neil Menard: We think this is step one, and we need to move it forward as a pilot project, but with a national perspective. As Darrel said, we think it will work very well if we use people on the ground to put our message out. Then we would probably come to you with a proposal for a larger project, the same as this but national.

The marketing project would assist us greatly, but it is more pointed toward marketing our products throughout the world.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

• 1210

Mr. Darrel Wong: I'd like to add a couple of comments on this issue. What we're trying to do is go out and tell a good story, because we're doing a good job and we're not getting any credit for it. For example, in British Columbia—I know it's not the only province that has good forest practices; it's just that I'm more acutely aware of what we do in British Columbia than anywhere else—we put a forest practices code in place to create some of the highest standards in the world. What that got us was virtually nothing, which is really indicative of part of what I think the problem is today.

We have people talking about the Canadian Standards Association and Forest Stewardship Council certification. There are companies in my local union that are working on it and are one step away from actually being certified, such as TIMFOR Contractors. Other major forest companies are actively participating and working at trying to get all of the different certification levels. In my opinion, it's just one more carrot we're reaching for.

The problem with that is that when we get that, I don't think it's over. I think it's just the next one and the next one and the next one. While I think we need to prove to the world that we are doing good forest work, I don't think that at the end of the day FSC or any of the other certifications are what's going to solve it. It's people going out and talking to the international marketplace about the real work we're doing and showing them through examples the good work we're doing.

We'll continue to work on all of the certification things from both a local union's perspective and, I know from talking to Neil, a national union's perspective, as well as speaking with the forest industry.

But the real issue is that we have a good message. We're doing a good job. We just need the opportunity to get out to the international marketplace and tell them that and show them it.

Mr. John Duncan: This is not a question but a comment in line with—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): I'll ask for your brevity, sir.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, very much so.

Brent mentioned the Great Canadian Mining Show. We had the Canadian Forestry Association before this committee, and one of their major focuses right now is to develop a virtual forest show. So it might be something to cooperate collaboratively on with the Canadian Forestry Association. You never know.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Darol Smith: I would like to make another point. With regard to this pilot project we're proposing here today, I don't know how to go about it, but there's a real sense of urgency in British Columbia about doing something. We need your help yesterday, basically, and we're asking you in your deliberations to try to expedite this matter for us if you possibly can.

Mr. John Duncan: I think that standstill agreement underlines the urgency. The fact that document got as far as it got is a strong indication of the sense of urgency that is out there certainly with the industry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you.

I'm going to go now to Mr. St. Denis and then to Mr. Keddy. If we have a little time at the end, we can maybe go around again, if you'd like.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know we'll hear more about the project proposal.

On the certification, Ms. Goodman mentioned that these various certification regimes, schemes, systems, whatever you want to call them, are not even in their infancy. Let's say they're in their very early days. I think it's fairly obvious that it's not a situation that any government, person, or organization has any control of. It's sort of like the Internet. It's a wild frontier and it's happening, and the best people, governments, and organizations can do is respond intelligently and wisely to what's happening. It's very much, I think, the same with certification. It's happening. I'm not saying that it's out of control. It's not a situation that is controllable, but we can react wisely to what's going on.

• 1215

Inasmuch as Home Depot has decided, for their reasons, to adopt FSC, and the president made it clear that they favour companies that are either FSC-certified or are moving in that direction, making steps in that direction, my first question is, how much business has been lost to B.C. forest companies, say, to Home Depot and other major buyers over certification issues? Has anybody actually lost sales dollars yet?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: The fact of the matter is, on a global level, B.C. is truly leading the way in certification.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: That's an important point.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: And that is a point that we need the federal government to help us communicate.

The fact that there are six certifications in B.C. is extremely significant. We didn't have one last year. Companies are moving fast and furious. There's lots of talk about different systems, and so forth, and most companies are agreeing to get two certifications. They're starting out with an ISO, which is their environmental management system, and on top of that they're overlaying some sort of performance basis in either CSA or FSC. Some of them are going for all three; some of them are talking about four, including the American SFI system.

Companies are taking it seriously. They are going to deliver certified products to the market, and that means changing forest practices and continuous improvement.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: But to my question, has there been any loss of sales to date as a result of certification?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Not that I know of, because we're ahead of people.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Okay.

As the second part of my question, you mentioned it would take two years under the FSC regime to come up with a regional system. Is that because it takes a long time to get something through the FSC system, or is it because the work at the regional level to come up with the parameters takes a long time? Could you describe for us briefly how that work is evolving for a regional FSC system?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Sure. At the regional level there are four chambers: economic, social, environmental, and first nations. From each chamber, you have two elected officials who sit on a steering committee. You have Greenpeace at the table with forest companies and first nations, and so forth.

As you can imagine, the process is quite challenging, but so far we're confident that it seems to be open and transparent. They have to go through the 10 principles and 52 criteria and fit them into the B.C. landscape. So this process takes a long time. It's scientifically rigorous. It involves input from all sorts of stakeholders, including communities, first nations, and so forth.

So that's the length of the process. We're not saying it shouldn't take two years, because we think it has to be done properly. We don't have any problems with that at all, but it's a simple fact that we are not going to have the standard for two years. That obviously has implications in terms of people getting certified, although the international organization does have a mechanism to get certified before that standard is in place.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Is either the province and/or the federal government involved in any way in the four chambers in that process, or is that very much driven by the FSC itself in partnership with companies, unions, and communities?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Both the federal government and the provincial government are involved to some extent. The provincial government has an ex-officio member on the standards team, which involves going through the process, and Janna Kumi of the Pacific Forestry Centre in Victoria is also involved on the periphery as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you, Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm trying to focus our discussion here a little more. I think we're all in agreement that what you folks are proposing is an excellent idea. It's a necessity given the state of the industry today and the state of opposition to some of the forest practices of the past.

One of the things that bothers me a lot, and I'm certain it bothers you folks, is the fact that you have a forest practices code in place—and I believe it's the first one in the country to be put in place—and the rest of us are playing catch-up. That should have given you an opportunity to, I hate to use the word “interface”, but to interface with some of the environmental groups. They should have been looking at you folks and saying, hey, the door is open a crack. I'm just trying to look at this from the other side. Maybe they didn't feel that the door was ever going to open, and that obviously hasn't happened.

• 1220

You pass your forest practices code, you look at certification, you look at trying to develop some type of dialogue with environmental groups or groups in opposition to those of us in the world who, quite simply, cut trees, and it becomes one battle after another.

So you're here seeking help from the federal government and we're discussing that, but I think we need to take that a step further. I wonder if you've had a direct face-to-face sit-down meeting with the minister on this, and I wonder what we can do as a committee to help. It's as simple as that.

We can make motions, we can study issues, we've looked at certification, we've looked at forest practices code, and we've been to B.C. We've all had background enough on this issue to move forward on it. So how do we do that?

Mr. Darol Smith: We requested a meeting with the minister when we came down here to Ottawa this trip. Unfortunately, he wasn't available.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Right.

Mr. Darol Smith: We're meeting later this afternoon with his policy adviser.

To touch on some of the other things you said, I represent Local 2171 on the central coast and the coastal resource management process that's taking place in B.C. right now. As we pointed out to members of Parliament when they toured the mid-coast last year, only a very small percentage of the land base will ever be harvested.

At the land-use table I'm sitting at right now with Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, over the past few months talks have turned towards eco-based forestry management. The IWA believes in high environmental standards that protect biodiversity and enhance and protect forestry ecosystems that are based on sustainable forest management. But our approach must be balanced and take into consideration employment, communities, and first nations. We're concerned that the preservationist view of eco-forestry now may prove so costly that forest companies in B.C. will be unable to harvest any of the timber.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think there's a general consensus that we certainly need to preserve some of our forestry lands and maintain the biodiversity in the country. That's out there. However, the educational aspect of what you're talking about, to begin with, is where we miss, and that's in our high schools. My own kids come home from school and say, we're using too much paper; you shouldn't be cutting trees.

You said you were sixth generation; I'm an eighth generation logger in Nova Scotia. We've cut trees on property since the mid-1700s, and we intend to cut more of them.

So people need to understand that trees do not grow forever. They fall down. There are more trees that are destroyed by fire and insects in the country than we're going to harvest in the next ten years. But how do you put that message into a package and get it out to people and make it work? I think that's what we're talking about. How do we get you the $350,000 or $450,000 to begin with, match it, and then move from there?

We need to spend some money here, and we need to do it as a federal entity, because it can't all be handled by the provinces. We need to be able to continue to log in this country, support what you and like-minded groups in the country are doing, and move forward, instead of just continuing the debate amongst the converted.

Mr. Darrel Wong: We really appreciate your comments, and that's why we're here with a smaller plan. We'd like to have a huge plan, but we're here with a smaller plan because we think we'd probably have a better opportunity with a smaller plan to be able to get the funding, and then we can prove what we're saying. We can come back with documented proof about what we've been able to accomplish.

We believe going anywhere without having a proven document makes it more difficult to get something than it does after you've actually proven your worth. At that point, you get a better package in order to be able to go out and spread that word a little more.

• 1225

I want to touch just for a second on a couple of other points you raised. One thing we're not getting any recognition for is that British Columbia set a target 10 years ago to get 12% of the province set aside in parks.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's a good point.

Mr. Darrel Wong: We've already accomplished that, and we're still talking about more protected areas. That concerns me a little. But that's still going on. In fact, as Darol said, they're talking about additional protected areas within the central coast.

For those members who did have the opportunity to come out and tour the central coast, it was also explained at that time that the area we're looking at harvesting within the central coast—the entire central coast—is 7%. Ninety-three percent of the central coast is never going to be touched.

We're not talking about just the valley bottoms. We do a lot of helicopter logging now. We do individual tree selection. We do selected harvesting. We're doing a lot of different harvesting practices.

But we're talking about 7% of the central coast of British Columbia that is being targeted right now, and they're saying we can't have access even to that.

It's not a matter of people sitting down reasonably and saying, let's share the wealth. It's saying, we want 100% of it, folks, and you don't get any. That's the real target here. I believe it's absolutely the God-given truth that this campaign is never going to stop until we no longer log in the province of British Columbia, and quite frankly, until we no longer log old growth all across this country. It's moving all the way across this country.

I'm very sorry to hear it's as bad as it is on the east coast, added to what we have in British Columbia. It's a horrendous problem. And it's because a huge, multinational corporation is making big money in putting us out of business. I don't think it's unfair to ask for the support of the provincial and federal governments, for them to get involved. I know you are, and I'm not being critical of anybody. All I'm saying is that we'd like the opportunity to be involved as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Absolutely. We appreciate those comments.

I'm going to move now to Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question I'm about to ask has already been answered, so please don't repeat yourself. I'll look at the record. I would preface my remarks by saying I'm in agreement with the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Keddy.

My question is in the area of certification, looking particularly at performance-based criteria for certification. Is there any concern in the industry and from the different interests that you represent that these performance-based criteria—let's take FSC certification—that are applied in other parts of the world are not uniform? In other words, if there's a difference, is the difference a material difference?

If there's a difference in the criteria, in the performance standard, in deciding whether a Canadian forest is going to obtain FSC certification, is it a difference that matters? Is it a difference that goes to competitiveness?

That's my first question, if you haven't answered it.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: Sure. The fact is that the bar is already set higher for Canada. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact of life. When that would become an issue is if one standard were to gain a monopoly in the market and that standard did not have the appropriate mechanisms to ensure harmonization.

The Forest Stewardship Council does have a mechanism for harmonization. It hasn't been tested particularly well yet, because there aren't very many approved standards. So that is an issue that remains to be seen. The industry is very concerned about it and it's going to be working hard to ensure that while the playing field may not be level, we're not going to get it tilted too far.

• 1230

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: This committee is particularly interested in examining this entire issue from the viewpoint of international trade. We've heard witnesses say that many forests in Sweden have obtained FSC certification, and that has created a huge entry opportunity for those products into the United States. I see a disadvantage immediately in that scenario, because if it's more difficult for us to get FSC certification, it's more likely we'll encounter barriers when we're trying to get Canadian product into the foreign marketplace. I can't think of anything that's a more serious topic than that. Do you perceive that as a big problem? If you do, perhaps you could articulate your concerns. I think this is what we need to get a handle on at the committee.

Then I'll make a comment, if I still have time, Mr. Chair. It's up to you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): You have about a minute.

Ms. Sarah Goodman: I'll keep my comments short. I think it's very good that this committee is already focusing on this issue. The reality right now is that there isn't much certified forest product. So Home Depot today couldn't say FSC only. They just couldn't get the product. So they're still buying from us, and Annette Verschuren says she wants to buy more from us. But if it reaches the point where there's so much supply on the market that is FSC and for some reason our standards are set far above other standards in the world, that definitely does pose a non-tariff trade barrier.

Mr. Darol Smith: I also see this as a very serious issue. Obviously, the playing field is not level. In countries such as Sweden they've cut their old growth many, many years ago. As we've said here today, three-quarters of our timber here in Canada is old growth. So they can't possibly be the same standards.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Here's what we heard as a committee from someone who came here and made a presentation on behalf of FSC. They said that in terms of certification and the biodiversity issue, only 20% was the trees, in terms of the consideration, and 80% was the balance of the biodiversity.

When you look at some of these plantation forests in Europe that have received FSC certification, if 20% is the trees, then that's all they're operating on because basically the rest of the biodiversity doesn't exist. Clear-cutting, what kind of an issue is that? That just goes along with it. When that forest is ready, it's harvested. You don't have what Mr. Keddy talked about, the natural death of the forest over a period of time, because it grows like a carrot patch and they go in and they harvest it.

If that kind of forest can be certified, why should any performance standard place a higher onus on a Canadian forest? Why are we standing for that? They talk about the tyranny of the majority. Are we facing a form of tyranny of the minority in this whole exercise?

Mr. Darrel Wong: In my opinion, there is no question that we actually are targeted. The reason we're targeted is because we're probably the best money-making business there is for some of these major environmental organizations. You take a picture of one of the beautiful forests in British Columbia and of some of the beautiful forests across Canada, and then you take a picture of the area after it has been logged, and it ain't pretty. There is just no way of getting around that. But if you take a picture of a wheat field before it's harvested, that's a gorgeous picture as well. Look at canola, that gorgeous yellow on the fields. The day after it's harvested it ain't very pretty either, but it grows back. So do the trees in British Columbia.

• 1235

I know that the group of people who came out saw what we were doing in British Columbia and had the opportunity to see the second-growth trees. Brent had the opportunity to stand on a huge stump—

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I was with him.

Mr. Darrel Wong: Exactly, and he could see where there—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Both of us were on that stump.

Mr. Darrel Wong: That's right. You could see the huge hemlock trees that were second-growth trees. They're gigantic trees—and that's second growth.

So the reality is that we do good work; it grows back. There's a significant difference between a forest that doesn't have those kinds of characteristics and what they do on the coast.

Mr. Darol Smith: Thank you for your comments and your question, specifically the comments about biodiversity.

I sit at the table with Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and they raise this issue quite a bit, that the forest industry and logging in general are causing species to go extinct. Those of you who were at the public hearings in Vancouver may remember—and it is part of the record—that when questions were asked about the extinction of species, the greens had absolutely no answer. They couldn't provide us with the names of any species that have gone extinct. At the end of that period of questioning, Mr. St. Denis requested that the environmental movement send this information on to them. I was trying to find out whether or not they did.

We had an inquiry to the Minister of the Environment and the question was, has logging in Canada caused the extinction of any species of flora or fauna that the department is aware of, and if so, which species have become extinct, and what proof does the department have of their extinction?

The answer that came back was that the department was not aware of any species of flora or fauna that went extinct due to logging activities, as determined by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. It's signed by the Minister of the Environment, David Anderson. I'd like that to be part of the record, that there are no species in Canada that have gone extinct as a result of logging in any place in Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you for that.

We're down almost to the last word, and Mr. Chatters is going to get it.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been quite silent because I deferred to our expert in the field, John Duncan. But there's an issue that I think needs to be raised, because it's important for our report and it's important if your pilot project is going to see the light of day.

We heard from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs that in their posts around the world they have a team who, when Greenpeace or other environmental groups mount a campaign against a particular market, go in within days to answer that campaign and to respond to it. I think it's important that you tell us how the team you're proposing to put together will complement rather than conflict or duplicate the work that's already being done in that, because that's going to be the argument against funding your pilot project, and I think you need to respond to it.

Mr. Darrel Wong: I wouldn't mind starting that off.

I think what we would do is we'd complement that program, because we're going to take the people who live and work in those communities and be able to explain exactly what has taken place in those communities—the type of work we do, the improvements we've done—and I think that sends a really clear message. I think that's a complement to what the Canadian government is already doing today.

I think where it has taken place in the past—for example, there have been other tours into Germany a number of years back—they were quite positive and the response was good. In fact, it was the people from the area... there were a fair number of first nations people on the tour, labour went, our national president at that time, Gerry Stoney went, the premier of British Columbia went, and a number of people from industry went. It came back with real, positive results. The problem is, it's one tour. Anything you do only once only lasts for a certain period of time. By having the people who live and work in the communities, I think that's going to complement what the government currently does.

• 1240

Mr. David Chatters: Are there any other comments on this?

Ms. Sarah Goodman: I guess I would just add that I think it's important for this committee to note that we do work very closely with Canadian officials overseas. I have a memo sent from our office on April 6 to all the Canadian embassies and consulates around the world that are involved in this issue. As much as the Sue Garbowitzes in L.A. and the Jennifers in Tokyo care about this issue, they don't and cannot bring the same perspective as the people from the forest. It's a totally different ball game. They can deliver the SFM messages, but they can't deliver the human face, they can't deliver the relationships, they can't connect the buyers to the people who make and grow the products they're buying.

Mr. David Chatters: That's the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thanks, Mr. Chatters.

Well, I was wrong. Mr. Duncan has one more brief intervention here.

Mr. John Duncan: I have two comments and a question. The first comment is that I wanted to thank Darol Smith for entering my Order Paper question and response on species extinctions into the record here, but I wonder if we couldn't just table that with the committee so that all of our members could get a copy of that. It was the Vancouver question that led me to table that question.

The second comment is on the question Carmen was posing about competitiveness when it comes to certification. There's a huge complication with that question that I think we have to recognize right now, and that is that supply is already constrained in our major market by the Softwood Lumber Agreement. The rush to certification is further complicated because of that. If that Softwood Lumber Agreement expires, I think it will be an even larger incentive for people to go after certification. That's just a comment.

The last thing I wanted to talk about was the fact that we were supposed to have Gerry Furney, the Mayor of Port McNeill, here today, and he's not here. I just wondered if you could describe for the committee the support that this initiative has received from the mayor and what he might have said today if he were here.

Mr. Darol Smith: I can't really speak for Gerry Furney, because as you know, John, he's very long-winded. Maybe Darrel could take that one.

I can tell you that I met with a dozen mayors from rural communities in British Columbia last week and they're very supportive of this initiative. They're basically throwing their support behind it. They're standing ready and able to come along and be part of this team if we ask them to.

Mr. Darrel Wong: I have a letter dated March 22, 2000, and it's a copy that Gerry Furney sent me with regard to this particular issue. It was requesting $20 million from the FRBC in British Columbia. If I might, there are one or two quotes I wouldn't mind reading into the record from this document, if that would be okay with the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Excuse me; I don't want to stop you. You can certainly read it in, but could you leave us with a copy?

Mr. Darrel Wong: Oh, certainly.

Mr. John Duncan: I think we have that document already.

Mr. Darrel Wong: You may well have. I'm not sure that everybody has it, though. There are just a couple of quotes here. His opening paragraph is:

Our resource industries, workers and communities are under severe pressure from the multi-national environmental organizations. The campaign is in the form of full-page advertisements in national and local newspapers, as well as in television advertising. This is rumoured to be the start of a twenty million dollar campaign here in North America and in Europe. A similar campaign in Japan will follow.

• 1245

I'm not going to go through the rest of it. Here it says:

We believe that, collectively, we must launch our own campaign in Europe, Japan and North America. A people to people campaign.

We must show the multi-national environmental movement that we mean business. We should seek the moral high ground in promoting our excellent forest practices code and the natural beauty of our province. We must have a positive campaign to inform the world about the progress of our certification programs...

We are suggesting to the Federal and Provincial Governments that they should assist our efforts by offering any assistance necessary through our diplomatic and trade officials...

Organized Labour must be involved to ensure that our workers' concerns are heard by their colleagues in each of the countries being targeted.

Canadian Foundations, and the companies that support them, must communicate our concerns to the mostly American Foundations that are supplying the financial wherewithal to launch these campaigns against us.

Gerry was very upset that he wasn't able to be here on behalf of the mayors of the north end of the island, the central coast, and the north coast. In fact, I'll leave a copy of this letter and thank you very much for the opportunity to present that information.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Thank you very much.

Mr. Darol Smith: To add to that, if I may, the mayors I talked to last week have asked me to report back to them on the committee's take on our proposal. I know for sure, Saturday morning I'll be getting a call from a young mother of two children who will want to know if the committee supports our proposal.

I'm asking you right now to try to get back to us as soon as possible with some positive information or positive response basically telling us you're going to give us the $400,000 or $500,000 we're asking for.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): We may have to march on the office of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Darol Smith: We have the committee to do it.

Mr. Darrel Wong: We would appreciate that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Have we exhausted this?

Thank you for coming and making this presentation. The chairman is obliged to remain neutral, but you have tested my neutrality here. I think I can speak for all of us in thanking you for a very strong contribution to this study. I think we have gained an insight over these last few weeks as to what we're faced with, and the challenge before us is how best to go about it.

Mr. John Duncan: Can we give the witnesses an idea of the timeframe we are considering for this exercise?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): Before this report?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): I really don't know.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Can I offer an intervention? It can't be before we do the visits to the other places.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): That's right.

Mr. John Duncan: That's the last piece of the puzzle, but before we had planned that visit to northern Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, we were talking about tabling this in the middle of May. That trip is about that time, is it not?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I don't want to speak for the vice-chair. If everything went perfectly well, hopefully it could be before we break in June, but it has to be after the trips, and you know the problems we've had travelling.

Mr. John Duncan: There won't be any trouble travelling for this committee—at least there's nothing foreseeable.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Julian Reed): As the committee knows, we're still waiting for authorization to do that, and they are scheduled early in May. We'll try to be as expeditious as possible to get our report in your hands.

Thank you again.

This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.