:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I have provided copies of my remarks around the table if you need them. My opening remarks will be bilingual, so I'll be flipping back and forth from French to English if that's okay.
My name is Robert Larocque, and I am the senior vice-president of the Forest Products Association of Canada. I'm very pleased to be here today to represent the forest sector as part of your study on secondary supply chain products in the forestry sector in Canada.
[Translation]
The Forest Products Association of Canada offers a voice, in Canada and beyond, to Canadian lumber and pulp and paper producers on matters related to government, trade, the environment, and our topic of discussion today, the new supply chains in the forest products sector.
[English]
First, let me give you a quick snapshot of how important the forest products sector is to Canada's economy. It is a $67-billion industry that represents about 12% of Canada's manufacturing GDP. The industry is one of Canada's largest employers, operating in 600 forest-dependent communities from coast to coast. We directly employ about 230,000 Canadians across the country.
The sector is also important when it comes to the Canadian environment. As custodians of almost 10% of the world's forests, we take our responsibilities as environment stewards very seriously.
Canada has the most independently certified forests in the world, 166 million hectares, or about 43% of all the certified forests. In fact, repeated surveys of international customers have shown that the Canadian forest products industry has the best environmental reputation in the world.
Climate change is emerging as the signature issue of our time. Forest products companies have been ahead of the curve by aggressively reducing their carbon footprint and running more efficient mills. In fact, pulp and paper mills have cut greenhouse gas emissions by an impressive 66% since 1990. That's an equivalent of nine million tonnes of CO2 per year. The sector also does not use coal, compared to our international competition, and barely any oil, less than 1%.
Following Canada's commitment under the Paris Agreement, the forest products industry pledged last May to remove 30 million tonnes a year of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. That's about 13% of the government's emissions reduction target. We called this initiative the “30 by 30” climate change challenge. We are proud to be part of the solution, and there is no question the Canadian forest products industry is an environmental leader.
[Translation]
I would like to point out that the existing supply chains and traditional products, such as timber and pulp and paper, must be supported to safeguard the future of this sector. All the current efforts related to innovation, international trade, and infrastructure projects are appreciated and must continue, but new supply chains that would enable the sector to produce biofuels, biomaterials, and tall buildings, are within reach.
[English]
One of the key factors for a prosperous forest sector in the future is to ensure a sustainable, stable, and economic access to fibre from our Canadian forests. Climate change impacts, such as increased forest fires and pest infestation, have a significant impact on Canadians, on our communities, and on the forest industry.
We also believe that more can be done to make our forests more resilient and to ensure long-term sustainability. We must continue research of long-term potential climate change impacts such as modelling of forest fires and pest infestation, implement climate resilience solutions such as FireSmart communities, and work with our provincial counterparts to modify our forest management activities to allow for selecting and planting trees that are based on the changing climate conditions.
FPAC is currently working on setting up a multi-stakeholder federal and provincial committee to prepare recommendations and actions relating to climate change impacts, enhanced forest management, and policy barriers to a resilient forest.
[Translation]
In terms of mills, one of the new supply chains for the sector is the production of green electricity. The sector has invested billions of dollars in the 2000s, and more than 40 mills now generate green electricity from residues. According to a report by Natural Resources Canada, these investments have sustained more than 14,000 jobs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 543,000 tonnes, atmospheric emissions by about 15%, and the water used by mills by the equivalent of 4,000 Olympic-size pools.
[English]
While the sector will continue to generate green electricity from residues, new value chains will be created as the sector transforms to produce biofuels, bioproducts, and biomaterials. The sector started the transformation in recent years with more than $1 billion in projects and announcements.
Furthermore, in partnership with the agricultural sector, the sector recently proposed a biodesign supercluster to produce advanced biomaterials and low-carbon fuels with the objectives of establishing new bioeconomy value chains, accelerating disruptive technologies, sustaining rural economies, and improving the environment.
The cluster has established five-year targets of $6 billion in economic growth, 64,000 new direct and indirect jobs, and four million tonnes of GHG reductions.
Unfortunately, the biodesign supercluster was unsuccessful under the current superclusters initiative. However, the sector was very pleased that, at around the same time, a forest bioeconomy framework for Canada was announced by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. FPAC supports the ministers' four key pillars: communities and relationships; supply of forest resources and advanced bioproducts; demand for advanced bioproducts, i.e., creating new value chains; and continued support for innovation. These pillars are well aligned with the biodesign cluster and sector transformation. We look forward to working with the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers in the implementation of the framework.
The sector's road to full transition to a low-carbon economy will create a new secondary supply chain in the transportation sector. We will become a supplier of biofuels. In the energy sector, we may become a supplier of renewable natural gas. Regarding sustainable living, we have products used by Canadians in their day-to-day lives, like producing bioplastics, nano materials, and car parts, as well as new construction of tall wood buildings made of engineered wood and wood fibre insulation. However, to get there, we must work together.
Current policies and funding programs, such as Sustainable Development Technology Canada or the investments in forest industry transformation, IFIT, which are necessary, focus on capital investment for new technologies at the mills. Moving forward, it is crucial that we enhance or create new policies and funding programs for two key areas, which I'd like to focus on today. They are ensuring a sustainable and healthy forests for stable and economic access to biomass and accelerating access to new markets and value chains.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the governments, our communities, our academic and indigenous partners that have contributed to the initiation of our sector's transformation. With programs, such as IFIT and the recent clean growth program that was announced this week, the government's vision, through the bioeconomy framework and partners such as FPInnovations, we are moving toward a fully transformed sector. However, to really accelerate the transformation, capitalize on economic and job growth, and ensure environmental benefits, we all need to work together to ensure sustainable and healthy forests, maintain our current programs for the forest sector facilities, and accelerate access to new markets and value chains.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for your attention and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
:
Thank you for the invitation. I am very pleased to be here.
We have circulated a document with pictures, and since a picture is worth a thousand words, I think it will promote discussion.
[English]
I will start by saying who we are, what we are doing, and what is the impact on climate change. You'll see some real examples.
FPInnovations is an organization that was created from the merger of four organizations in 2007. It now represents about 400 to 500 researchers throughout Canada, with headquarters in Montreal and offices in Hinton, Alberta, Quebec City, Thunder Bay, and Vancouver, and 40 industrial advisers throughout Canada. It has a budget of about $75 million to $90 million per year, with one-third from the industry, which has 170 members, one-third from governments—nine provinces, two territories, and the federal government—and one-third from contracts, royalty licensing, and so on and so forth. It is a not-for-profit organization with a public charter.
What I want to introduce to you today is how the forest sector impacts climate change. If you look at slide 4, you will see this: “To mitigate climate change, it is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and store more carbon.” My objective today is to talk about healthy forests, and a healthy forest sector can do both of these things. We'll give you some examples of both.
If you look at slide 5, you will see that the forest carbon cycle is a natural solution: capturing the carbon dioxide from the tree itself, also capturing manufacturing air emissions, using short- and long-term sequestration in the building itself, and then recycling the use of wood into energy or secondary manufacturing.
In slide 6, we see the opportunities for the forests and forest products in the future. It is very important to realize that FPInnovations does the research on the silviculture, the genomics, the forest operations, and the secondary and tertiary transformation of wood, pulp and paper right up to bioenergy and the bioeconomy.
If you look at some of those projects, you will see that the long-term storage of carbon in wood products, such as wood in buildings and infrastructure. You'll see some examples later of wooden bridges, which are a fantastic new market, and also of mid- and high-rise wood building construction.
We also do quite a bit of research in increased forest protection against fires and pests, such as the mountain pine beetle and spruce budworm, but also, as Bob was saying, we help to transform the present forest sector towards bio-sourced products in creating a biorefinery using biomass to create biofuel, biochemicals, or biomaterials. It is obvious also that the forest sector and the bioeconomy that we're producing for our own research and innovation will provide economic growth and green jobs for both rural and urban communities. We work at both levels.
On slide 7, we have chosen to show three examples of the impacts of the forest sector. Some of them are not foreseen. One of them is in transportation and mobility, and others are in the bioeconomy and buildings. When you look at transportation and mobility on slide 8, what you will see is the development of an electric autonomous shuttle connection with four-season mobility for all mass transit.
We do the study on transportation in the forestry sector. Transport represents 45% of the cost of wood. Then we transfer that to the commercial sector. The first picture on the right-hand side is of the electric interior buses at the Calgary airport, terminal 2. If you go there, you will see those have been produced by the technology of FPInnovations.
If you also look at energy use, which I think is very important and we'll come back to biodiesel, we're really looking at 100% electric or hybrid-electric trailer, winterized, as we understand it. There's also new technology, like platooning, which is in the second picture on the right-hand side, in which you have a three-foot van with only one driver and a 0.6-second space in between. Obviously for northern communities like those in the Plan Nord in Quebec or some in the Tuktoyaktuk-Inuvik area, because there are no drivers, this is a very interesting and very cost-saving measure.
Obviously this is not done totally by FPInnovations. It's a partnership, because we don't do everything, but we make sure that everything gets done. In the case of the transport, we have a partnership with ABB, Ericsson, Motrec, and Technoparc Montréal.
If we look at the bioeconomy, biofuels, and biochemicals, we have a major project in La Tuque, which is north of Trois-Rivières. It is a partnership between the Quebec government, the federal government, the Finnish hydrocarbon industry—which is called Neste—the La Tuque area, and us to produce drop-in biodiesel from residual forest biomass product. The research aspect has three phases. The first one is completed. We're on the technology partnership to eventually produce drop-in biodiesel that would be exported from La Tuque to Trois-Rivières and then to the rest of North America. The total investment when going to the commercial phase would be $1 billion.
Currently, as Bob was saying, replacing some of the natural gas being used with biomass under a pilot project in the pulp and paper plant is also a major research program.
The most fascinating aspect of things is the bioeconomy, from wood chips to bioplastics, as shown on slide 10. We have a pilot plant in Thunder Bay with Résolu where we extract H lignin and a sugar stream, cellulose, C5 and C6. The H lignin is transformed first into carbon biochar, but eventually gets into the animal feedstock. I'd gladly explain why pigs like cellulose, but it is a brand new market and it will help in continuing to produce pulp in Thunder Bay. At the same time, the sugar, C5 and C6, will be shipped to Sarnia to be transformed into biochemicals and different acids. The clients there will be Michelin and Lego, because they like to secure their synthetic rubber.
We have given you some examples. I'll start with the high-rise buildings because they seem to have aroused some interest. In slide 12 you see that we already have major projects in high-rise buildings. We have a 12-storey student housing project in Vancouver, and in Montreal, an eight-storey condominium, an investment of $140 million. Those projects also increase the use of wood in bioproducts such as the bridge you see on the right-hand side, which is 160 metres long and 375 tonnes of charge, which has been constructed in the Chibougamau area for the Stornoway mine. Those are examples of what the forest sector is doing in zone transformation, its contribution to climate change, clean tech, and the future of Canada.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Larocque.
I noticed that you used to be a process engineer. I used to be a certified senior process engineer as well. I also studied in the pulp and paper area at U of T and I used to work for PetroCan. I'm very glad to see you here as a witness today.
About 20 years ago, PetroCan was recognized as a leading-edge research institute in this industry. This is why I feel so proud to have been part of PetroCan 15 or 16 years ago. Then it merged with Forintek Canada Corporation and others that formed FPInnovations.
As I recall, the amalgamation was necessary to deal with reduced profit, cut costs because of the heightened competition in that very rapidly shrinking industry at that time. Then some years ago, Canada mainly sold the high value-added product to our global market. For instance, we sold a high-quality paper and craft department to the Asian market. Our forestry products were much sought after.
However, today it would appear that we are now talking more about certain lumber or the raw material of forest products to the global market and even to Asia or the U.S. But those products no longer have such a high value-added status. Of course, sometimes when we mention biofuels, we mention biomaterials and some new areas that might appear in your talk.
This question is for both witnesses. In your opinion, how healthy is this industry in Canada right now? Do you have any contingency plans to handle this worst-case scenario? How do we maintain this leading-edge research as we did before? How can the government better support the industry to go through the worst periods?
:
Very quickly, when there is a trade dispute like the one we're seeing, and we have to put 20% to 25% of tariffs on the side, that's money that the industry cannot pass over. We've been lucky so far that the price of wood in the United States has increased, but that also means it's 20% or 25% that we could have reinvested in our facilities or in new products, and we can't. It is removing capital from our companies.
We're also super concerned about the newsprint and paper countervailing duties that are supposed to be announced in January. If those go through, it means that pulp and engineered wood are pretty much the only things that are not countervailing from the United States. That is very, very concerning. That goes into diversifying our sector. We need to be able to make different things than just the typical pulp and paper, newsprint, and lumber.
One of the key issues involves support. There's some support right now with embassies in showing our products. Canada Wood does some work in Japan, for example, on demonstrations. We feel that because of all the help from FPInnovations we can make those biomaterials, but we need help convincing Nestlé, Danone, and all those people to absorb that kind of product. There are no current programs that are tailored to that.
As I said, we put a lot of money into capital investments. Don't eliminate that, but maybe take a portion of money there, allow a joint venture, like a wood product company with a plastics company, to do internal testing to see if it works, and help take away the risk from the federal government.
:
Thank you so much for coming today and for sharing your perspective with us.
We certainly understand the challenges in the sector for a range of reasons. It's good to hear about the diversification and the innovations that are taking place in the sector.
We've heard other testimony here of those who are the force, such as the primary producers, and the challenges in the sector in terms of mills closing, etc. Yet at the very same time. we heard from others, as we are from FPInnovations, of the range of diversification and innovation that can happen, the spur or the new spin-offs and the creation of new products, companies, expert capabilities, and so forth. The thing that occurred to me, as we were hearing this, is that there seems to be a gap there between those in that primary part and the emerging new opportunities.
This question is for both of you. What role could we have to incentivize a greater meeting of that gap? It seems to me that things like the bugs and fire, etc., are challenges for sure. At the same time, we heard other testimony that some of that wood that wouldn't be used in one way can be used in other ways, which is the diversification and innovation side. When we were hearing testimony we were hearing it from one end of the country to the other. What can we do as a federal government to incentivize that coming together?
I'll get to my second question in a second.
:
Good afternoon. I want to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak to this very important study. I am chair of the United Steelworkers' Wood Council. The council was created as a result of the 2004 merger between the USW and my former union, the Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada. The USW now represents more than 18,000 forestry workers, 32% of whom work in the industry's secondary supply chain.
As a matter of fact, Structurlam in British Columbia, which was mentioned by the gentleman from FPInnovations, is our operation. I didn't see the pictures of the bridge at the presentation, but I was at a presentation they gave earlier, and the bridge in that picture was made by our members in Quebec. We're most known or thought about for our loggers or our mill workers, but we are everywhere.
Maintaining a strong forest industry is not only in the interest of our workers or our 600 forest-dependent communities but is crucial to the health of Canada's economy. Our union has launched a campaign aimed at support for workers and communities. It's called “The Working Forest”, and it can be found at workingforest.ca. That was my little commercial.
Last year, the forest industry contributed more than $23 billion—so we're on the right page there—to Canada's GDP. The secondary supply chain employs more than 92,000 people across the country; however, the value-added sector, which includes everything from guitars to the modern CLT construction, has lost more than 43,000 jobs since 2001. Our union believes the natural resources committee must acknowledge this decline and recommend a reversal, through a national forest strategy that recognizes the separate but integrated sectors within the forest industry.
In 2017, events such as the ongoing softwood lumber dispute with the United States, last summer's forest fires in British Columbia, and the mountain pine beetle—all things you've heard about today—have negatively impacted the forest industry and the secondary supply chain. Climate change, resulting in several warm winter seasons in a row, means the mountain pine beetle could continue to have an impact on the boreal forest for another 13 years.
On the trade file, with no softwood lumber agreement in sight, we're weeks away from the final determination of duties by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Since the expiry of that agreement, softwood lumber exports to the United States from the EU have increased. Finland alone has increased its exports to the U.S. by 293%. The unrest and instability this has caused is intolerable, obviously. The Government of Canada must come to a just and fair solution to this crisis.
Canada is of course faced with a protectionist mood not only in the U.S. but globally. With a natural resource that is abundant and renewable, our government's priorities should be to promote jobs and innovation in Canada to build an industry that is competitive and attractive in the global markets.
Corporate behaviour, to speak to some of your previous questions, also has an impact on jobs and communities and on our ability to compete. With no controls to prevent them, Canadian companies with their investments in the U.S. are essentially robbing investment from industry in this country.
A factor in Canada's ability to be competitive in the value-added sector is controlling the export of logs. Log exports have increased dramatically over the last two decades. In a few short years, from 1997 to 2004, the amount of unprocessed exported B.C. timber increased from 200,000 cubic metres to well over 5.5 million cubic metres annually.
Wood that is milled offshore has led directly to mill closures and job loss, and that fibre is not here to do the wonderful innovative product creation we heard about in the last session. The bottom line is that there is no hope for a viable value-added industry in this country if no attempt is made to stop wood from being exported and not being processed in Canada.
That said, our submission does not advocate for a total ban on exports. However, there is ample opportunity to reduce Canada’s exports of unprocessed timber coupled with supports for the retooling and revitalization of our many mills, which will increase the number of Canadian-made wood products available domestically and internationally. If the goal of this study is to recommend measures that will grow the industry, national and provincial strategies are required, strategies that clearly lay out the role for public investment and government policies that both discourage the excessive export of logs and encourage domestic manufacturing. The federal government must take the lead and work with provinces to create the conditions necessary for growth.
As an example, our submission details the need for infrastructure and particularly primary and secondary roads. We are in agreement with the Ontario Forestry Industries Association that the lack of infrastructure is inhibiting the sector's return to full productivity.
Adequate timber harvesting is another issue that must be addressed through a national forest industry strategy. For the secondary supply chain to grow, ensuring a consistent and adequate volume of lumber is imperative. That being said, research and development on wood products for a variety of applications, including construction, industrial products, consumer goods, and much more must continue with funding opportunities and a federal commitment to the use of wood and wood products in procurement.
To conclude, let me repeat that from logging to milling to processing to product development, everything is interrelated and dependent on sound public policy and strategic approaches to securing a future for forestry in Canada. Ours is a clean, green industry that has built Canada from coast to coast to coast.
I urge you to take this opportunity to support our members and our 600 forest-dependent communities by recommending a national strategy for sustainability in forestry and the related secondary supply chains.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I welcome any questions you may have.
:
I would like to thank you guys for the opportunity to be a part of providing some solutions for secondary products in the forestry sector.
I'll tell you a little about myself. Since 1991, fresh out of high school, I was in the oil and gas industry as a seismic faller in line clearing. With the many ups and downs in the oil and gas industry, and the unhealthy workplace, I guess, and being away from home, I chose to diversify in 2012. Being on the tree end of things, I wanted to have the best tree company that I could before I bailed out of the industry. I attended a CanBio conference in Vancouver and got a few ideas and got started on my mission.
In the secondary supply chain steps in our company, we deal with urban wood now, more coming from the municipalities. We have a four-step approach. We remove, recycle, rebuild, and replant. With each step in this process of the tree, there are different products created. All of the products have various degrees of value and benefits, to the economy, the environment, and the bioenergy sector.
There are some pros and cons. When we did a tree removal before I started recycling, we would just take the tree down and get rid of it. That was a problem. In throwing it into the landfill or chipping it, there was little or no value to it. Once we started recycling it, the first step, and the easiest for most people, was to chip it, call it landfill cover or landscaping, water retention wood chips, but, again, with very little value. It can be used as biomass for wood chip boilers and such.
The next step that we took was to mill it. That had a moderate value, rough-cut lumber, undried stuff, used for fencing and building materials. It was still a bit unstable, so it presented its challenges.
Once we added our kiln, we found that was the level when it really took a jump. By kiln drying our lumber, this opened up a greater market. Anybody that wanted to build anything with it—houses, high-end furniture, anything from basically a pen to a cabin or a house—we had to get it to that level.
I didn't want to be only a supplier. I wanted to keep employees around all year, and add jobs. With basically controlling the raw product, we formed a supercluster with the businesses that I was selling it to. There are five of us working together. We have a timber frame company, a house-building company, a wood turner, and a custom CNC milling operation, and me, the tree guy.
We found that taking the raw product through all the steps was the best way to gain as many jobs as we could and obviously provide a varying degree of products and services.
Our last step, being the most crucial step that we do, is the replant. Working with municipalities in urban areas, we're not planting little seedlings. We use tree spades. We have a couple of different sizes of tree spades. It's urban reforestation and all the opportunities that the trees provide in the urban areas. There are some challenges and whatnot with urban forests being a quicker, I guess, takedown time. An urban forest typically lives for only a hundred years due to the strain of infrastructure and growth, so there is a good opportunity there for replanting our cities and urban areas.
Those are our four Rs in what we do in my company.
There are some challenges in urban logging and having a municipality take it back to the old way of doing things. We would clear a lot and instead of throwing it all away in the landfill we would do what grandpa used to do and build with it. It's a real challenge to convince the municipalities that this is good, stable wood, once it's kiln dried. We seem to order everything in from other countries. We throw our trees into the landfill and order building materials in. That's been our biggest challenge.
In the city of Red Deer, we're starting to make headway in building the products from the site back into the venue. The 2019 Winter Games are going to be in Red Deer. Just yesterday we used trees from one of our sites in the building that will house a skating oval. We have some projects we're pretty proud of.
There's a model that was done in Davis, California, called the Cannery. It sets a farm beside a neighbourhood, and the farm feeds the neighbourhood. Our approach is the same but with trees. We have a farm that recycles the lumber, and we build a neighbourhood beside it and then grow the food and the trees for the neighbourhood.
We also have a very cool education program we started called Sawing for Schools. We took a sawmill to the school. We cut up every kind of lumber or wood in our municipality and showed the students the processes and steps to getting it to a viable building material, and then we donated it back to the shop class. From there, we have started building unique cabins, live-edge Christmas trees, and other wood products with the students. We find that the education aspect of bringing it to the general public is very important, and we like to run it through the youth. We find they get good traction when you see a girl from grade 6 chainsaw carving at a home show. We're pretty proud of that.
That's what my company does.
I was listening to the comments of the other witnesses. Bioenergy is awesome, but if we extract everything we can for usable building materials out of the tree before we shred it, we can get a bit of bioenergy out of the wood, let it live for another couple of hundred years, and when that has to come out, we still have that biodiesel or bioenergy capability then. I like to use a tree to its fullest. We think this creates the most jobs and gives us the best value for our beautiful trees and forests. We can make products for export, but we can also keep our trees right here and make our neighbourhoods totally green.
Thank you.
:
One unique characteristic of harvesting the pine beetle.... I think almost everybody in this room is very familiar with the file. You know that you are not getting top-quality lumber from beetle-killed timber. That is why the export market and the Chinese market were so critical in the last eight to 10 years, particularly 2006 to 2009. As many of you know, having access to the Chinese market completely, utterly saved the Canadian industry.
The pine beetle issue is not gone. It has resurrected itself on the east side of the borders. It's going to take a bit of time to get it fixed, but that's going to come only through more controls and more harvesting of that fibre, and then finding the appropriate home for that fibre.
I was in China last week. Ironically, China banned the harvesting of natural forests, which is why they are importing so many logs and so much lumber. They are doing that to protect and enhance their forests. They want to maintain them for the future, for the long term.
To your point about replanting, government initiatives and policies are critical so that when the industry is replanting the trees—including what Mr. Moore was talking about—we replant the appropriate species. It might, in fact, be a different species from what we harvest, depending on what the environmental models show the climate is going to be. The luxury of that, of course, is that those trees are going to take 100 or 200 years to reach their full maturity.
I have a bit of faith left in this industry that it will be able to adapt to that new fibre in 100 or 200 years, so I think the future is still good.
:
You're absolutely right, with respect to the exports. Most of the exports from the west coast are coming from private lands. Ironically, a lot of those private lands were initially held by public companies that had manufacturing facilities. They got access to those private lands way back when, most of it for railway. In terms of other private lands, there were always volumes that were attached to existing sawmills.
The provincial government of the day, after 2000, changed the requirements for tenure and allowed companies to change their tenure, sell their tenure, and even stratify their tenure, without having any public review processes.
I don't want to be trashing any particular company. The model was.... MacMillan Bloedel, as everybody knows, was a world leader in forest products. They had mills everywhere on Vancouver Island. They had some problems and they sold to Weyerhaeuser. When they sold to Weyerhaeuser, MacMillan Bloedel had their private lands and their public lands all feeding—this is what's critical—their own mills. Weyerhaeuser then spun off. With the government changing its regulations, they spun off their public lands and their private lands. The government regulations then allowed them to do, frankly, whatever they wanted with their private land volumes. With those private land volumes, the company started closing mills.
Now we have a third or a quarter of the mills we used to have. Pretty much the same volume is being harvested by the same players, if you go back and follow their heredity, but instead, they're harvesting it and exporting, because they closed their sawmills.