Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of October 8, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:01 a.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am Senator Joyce Fairbairn from Lethbridge, Alberta, the deputy chair of the committee. Senator Mockler, the chair of the committee, will be joining us shortly.
Our committee is continuing its study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector. Today, we will hear from Robert Beauregard, President of the BOIS-Quebec Coalition and Dean of the Faculty of Forestry, Geography and Geomatics at the University of Laval. We are delighted to have you here this morning. Thank you for accepting our invitation. I will invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by a question and answer session.
[Translation]
Robert Beauregard, President of the Coalition and Dean of the Faculty of Forestry, Geography and Geomatics, Laval University: The BOIS-Québec Coalition was officially launched about a month ago in Montreal. Its mission is to promote the use wood to tackle climate change. We want to communicate the ecological attributes of wood, communicate wonderful structural and appearance wood applications, and promote pro-wood regulations so as to encourage the use of wood for good purposes.
The coalition consists of groups of environmentalists including the Regroupement national des conseils régionaux de l'environnement du Québec, Nature Québec, Équiterre. It also includes labour unions such as the FTQ and the CSN. Moreover, our membership includes small businesses such as À Hauteur d'homme, a very beautiful cabinet- making company that produces top-of-the-line products using wood from certified forests. It further includes big companies such as Pomerleau Inc., one of the biggest construction companies in Canada. We also have prime contractors such as the SSQ, Société immobilière inc., l'Association Québécoise des Fabricants de Structures de Bois, l'Association québécoise de la quincaillerie et des matériaux de construction (AQMAT), le Conseil de l'industrie forestière and the Quebec Wood Export Bureau. Also among this are educational, research and civil society organizations such as FPInnovations — Forintek, the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC), Laval University, l'Ordre des architectes du Québec and l'Ordre des ingénieurs forestiers. There are also municipalities, representatives of Quebec government construction organizations such as the Société immobilière du Québec as well as people who produce wood, use it and are interested in its environmental applications.
Our basic argument states that if we use one cubic metre of wood instead of using an equivalent quantity of concrete or of steel, we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by one tonne. This was demonstrated by the JEK, the IPCC, which is the Scientific Agency of the United Nations that deals with the issue of climate change.
Our argument has the support of strong scientific reasoning. We want to present the environmental impact of the use of wood so as to fight erroneous public perceptions. Many people are convinced that there is no wood left in the forests because of bad harvesting practices, excessive harvesting and insufficient reforestation. They do not know that wood can and must contribute to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and that it has a role in the fight against climate change. The general public does not know that wood is by and large very resistant to fire and that wood is as solid as steel or concrete if it is properly used. People are convinced that building with wood is expensive. We want to show that we have the know-how for using wood by introducing its use in large construction projects and that this way of building with wood has a great future ahead of it.
By using more wood in non-residential construction, we want to reduce our dependence on the American softwood lumber market. In Canada and in Quebec, less than 15 per cent of non-residential, commercial, industrial, institutional buildings such as schools, hospitals, government buildings are made of wood. Thus, the use of wood has a huge potential for reducing our dependency on American exports of softwood lumber. This dispute has spanned a century and I do not think that we are close to resolving it. By using our wood more frequently and more appropriately, we become less exposed to this risk.
We want to demonstrate the many diverse uses to which wood can be put, for example, in gymnasiums and in schools made with light wood framing. Light wood framing is widely used for building houses as well as large structures.
We also want to emphasize the magnificent appearance of wood in large prestigious, modern and contemporary buildings such as the pavilion at La Baie de Beauport. Heavy softwood lumber was used to build the Centre sportif du Cégep Marie-Victorin. Besides, the Coalition was launched on this construction site.
We also encourage citizens to develop the reflex of using wood. Neglecting to use wood should be considered by Quebeckers and by Canadians as a sin just as reprehensible as the use of plastic bags for grocery shopping.
We would like to see wood become the choice material for environmental soundness.
We ask citizens to use wood in their renovation projects, to insist on getting certified wood from hardware stores, to buy products made in Quebec and Canada, and to plant trees. We are also asking government decision-makers to set an example. The government is very much involved in construction and so it has the duty to set an example. We are asking the government to do its duty by always considering wood before anything else in its construction projects.
We are asking government decision-makers to make sure that the regulatory framework allows for the use of wood.
We are also asking for the implementation of tax breaks to encourage the use of wood.
We are asking municipalities to adopt resolutions to become committed to considering wood as a construction material. As we do this, we ask them to join our coalition. The only condition for becoming a member who could be an individual or a corporation or a public organization, is to be committed to considering wood as construction material.
We appeal to private companies to build with wood, to demand certified wood and to plant trees.
We have invited eminent Quebec citizens to join our campaign. You have seen examples of the promotional campaign in the newspapers. Several public figures have become involved. Claudette Carbonneau is the president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux du Québec. Stephen Guilbeault, president of Équiterre, was for a long time the president of Greenpeace Quebec. He is very involved in climate change issues and he lends great credibility to the argument that the use of wood is good for the environment and contributes to fight climate change. Bernard Labadie is the conductor of Les Violons du Roy, the resident orchestra at the Palais Montcalm. This auditorium was completely renewed in wood and it has fantastic acoustics. Alain Lemaire is the chief executive officer of the Cascades company. Sylvie Fréchette is a Canadian Olympic champion. Les Capitales de Québec, the professional baseball team of Quebec City, uses B45 baseball bats made in Quebec from yellow birch grown in Quebec.
This is the campaign that we launched. I have been working in forestry for more than 30 years and this is the first time that a campaign has been organized without a sour note. It rallied public support. Media coverage was very positive. People are hearing our message. For the first time, we have a campaign that speaks of a positive outlook for forestry and for wood. We have the following message. The use of wood is beneficial. It improves the environment, contributes to job creation and helps to maintain existing jobs in the regions. The message was very well received. We are happy with the results of this campaign. We hope that it will have a lasting impact and that it will create in the minds of Quebeckers and of Canadians a feeling that there are many good reasons why we must use wood.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. It seems like a vital and vigorous job that you are doing. You have fine people with you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Mr. Beauregard, my French is not good enough to ask these questions in French.
Our government was interested in promoting building projects with wood. In particular, we had discussions with the Government of British Columbia that built an Olympic pavilion totally in wood. It is one of their flagship buildings. We thought some of the regulations — federal, municipal and provincial — could be a drawback against the use of wood. I understand now that wood is treated or that there are ways to make it less of a fire hazard. How can we help organizations with those regulations? Could you elaborate?
[Translation]
Mr. Beauregard: For a long time, the Building Code restrained the use of wood especially in the public sector and in schools. A new Building Code was adopted in 2005. This new code keeps the old rules and improves a few of them. However, a new part was added to the new code based on performance. Building designers are asked to use any construction system and any material suitable to them, on the condition that they show that their whole plan is compliant with the objectives of the code, with fire prevention standards, and standards that have to do with snow accumulation, earthquakes and violent winds.
If a designer demonstrates by using mathematical models and laboratory tests that his system is compliant with the objectives of the code, he can build any structure he wants.
Research shows that wood can be used safely to make buildings fire-resistant, earthquake-proof and so forth. The old code banned the use of wood from buildings more than four stories high. Under the new code, a six-story building is being constructed in Quebec and once it is finished, it will be the tallest wooden building in North America.
Last year, in London, they opened a nine-story building entirely built of wood. A current project in Norway is the building a 16-story tower made of wood.
All kinds of projects can be done in wood. However, it must be demonstrated that the requirements of the code are complied with. This objective it totally achievable. All you need is good design and good use of the material. In some cases, it might involve treatments with fireproofing products. It has been demonstrated that wood can be used in a perfectly safe manner.
People often wonder whether wood lasts as long as concrete or steel. Recently, we witnessed the collapse of some concrete overpasses. The cost of maintenance for certain concrete and steel buildings that were built in the 1960s and that have not stood up well to the test of time is very high.
Let me note that in Japan there are Buddhist temples older than 1,200 years that are built of wood. Durability depends on the quality of design, on maintenance and not on the material.
Very long-lasting wooden buildings can be built in perfect compliance with all the safety requirements for occupants in all conditions. It depends on innovation and design. We must demonstrate the quality of the systems we want to build. We are getting better and better at doing it. We must educate and train our engineers and our architects to make them aware of the new provisions in the Building Code. Many are still ignorant of this new aspect of the code that was recently revised and that allows for more different projects than the old code did, although of course it requires analyses that could incur extra expenditure for demonstrating compliance with requirements of the code.
To the extent that this demonstration is made in a variety of situations, the more it is done, the easier it becomes. It involves repeated demonstrations according to a system. Once a system has been established, it can be used repeatedly in various conditions.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: That seems to be the provincial regulations. Is that the main body that regulates the use of wood?
[Translation]
Mr. Beauregard: It is somewhat complicated, but it is the Canada Building Code, which has slight variations in every province, but it applies to Canada as a whole. In British Columbia, is it possible to operate with the new Building Code. Engineers are often unaware of this. They must be reminded of it. And they also must show willingness to innovate. Sometimes, when the exercise involves extra effort, it is easier to say: ``Well, I have the code before me and it says that this practice is forbidden, therefore I am not doing it''. Some people would rather ignore the part that is based on performance, because it is more complicated. Demonstrations are required. Sometimes the ignorance is real and sometimes it is feigned at ignorance because things might get more complicated. The people who really want to innovate have adopted this path.
In British Columbia some projects have gone beyond the limits of the old Building Code. The new code is used in various instances in every jurisdiction in Canada.
[English]
Senator Stewart-Olsen: How environmentally friendly is the treatment of wood for fire proofing?
[Translation]
Mr. Beauregard: There are several methods for fireproofing wood. These methods are not merely chemical. I am not specialized in the chemical treatment of wood, but I know that chemical fireproofing is not the most widely used method in fire prevention. The two most widely used ways are the use of gypsum plaster board because gypsum is a fireproof material and it stops fire from spreading. It is the most used method in construction to stop the spread of fire.
The second most important method has to do with the size of the pieces of wood. When the pieces of wood are large in size they can be fireproofed and they can be set on fire but the fire does not go any further than a few millimetres, which constitutes a carbon barrier, while the remaining part of the beam stays intact. We have seen buildings that were entirely burnt except for the heavy wooden framework that was still standing, because it has survived the fire due to its size. A steel structure in a similar fire would have collapsed. Every engineer knows this. As soon as the temperature rises, the steel is softened and the structure collapses whereas large wooden beams remain standing. This is not the case with smaller sizes of wood such as two-by-fours, and so forth. With a light wooden framework, gypsum plaster board is the preferred way for fire prevention. These methods, involving gypsum plaster board and the size of the wood, do not have any impact on the environment.
Senator Eaton: Would it be useful to have a federal campaign as was done for tobacco so as to educate the public and convince people to use wood and to appreciate wood in a new way?
Mr. Beauregard: Yes, certainly. Campaigns such as the tobacco campaign succeeded due to the information spread by health specialists who demonstrated the harmful effects of tobacco beyond any doubt. In this field, there is much more emotion and many more people hold different interests. We decided to follow the approach of gathering together a vast diversity of stakeholders, such as environmentalists and people in the forestry industry, who often have tense relations with regard to the idea that it is good to use wood as a substitute for concrete and steel. The power of the message depends on the messengers. The fact that we can see Stephen Guilbault with his son in a hardware store purchasing two-by-fours provides a contrasting image to the constant campaigning by environmentalists against the forestry industry. We do not have to be trapped in that, we can go beyond it. In this case the messenger is the message. The people bearing the message say more about the message than do the words of the message. The message is spread more by committed messengers than through technical information.
Of course, the information must have a sound basis. In this case, there is enormous controversy around this issue. It is very important to know how to use the forests and how to choose the right spokespersons.
Senator Eaton: We have been studying the forest for some months and when I talk about it to people on the outside, they are always surprised to hear me say that wood keeps its carbon even when it is cut. The subject is obscured by ignorance. Often, in Canada, we have model programs like those you have in Quebec, but it does not extend throughout the entire country, the programs remain local in nature. It would be good if we could extend our message all across Canada.
Mr. Beauregard: Certainly. We have discussed these matters. We are hoping that it will come about, but in Quebec, the stakeholders in the forestry sector got together and established this type of communication. Elsewhere in Canada, there are other debates on the right way to do things and they have come to different conclusions.
For instance, the Canadian Wood Council has slogans such as ``Wood is Good'', et cetera. though they are excellent campaigns, they have not succeeded in getting through to the people so as to reach the intended objectives.
We still remain enclosed in these solitudes; the industry on the one hand, the environmentalists on the other hand and a struggle that divides them into the good guys and the bad guys. However in this campaign, we approached things from another point of view. It is the right angle, and if people elsewhere in Canada can take note of it and adopt this method, it will be successful.
People must get involved in convincing others, in discussing things with them and in forming partnerships so as to come to a common understanding. The Canadian Wood Council belongs to industry and to government. It is only one stakeholder among others, it does not represent all stakeholders. We succeeded in bringing a very wide diversity of stakeholders to the table. Although all stakeholders are not necessarily present, this has given a powerful thrust to our campaign. I do not think that anyone has succeeded in doing this elsewhere in Canada at this time, but it is an objective that must surely be pursued. We must seek out the participation of very broad sectors of public opinion, open a dialogue and broaden the consensus that the use of wood is in fact good for the environment.
This is not a solution to the industry's problems, even if the industry is facing great problems and is in great need of solutions. The public must come to the understanding that wood must be used for environmental reasons rather than concrete and steel, which emit large amounts of greenhouse gas. To produce these materials, an enormous quantity of energy is used, which also emits a large quantity of greenhouse gas; whereas wood, on the contrary, is a carbon neutral material. It is up to us to make this benefit known and to change people's perception of this part of industry and of the role of forests in society.
Senator Eaton: Have you approached ministers Prentice or Raitt?
Mr. Beauregard: We certainly have. The authorities of the Department of Natural Resources Canada gave us an excellent hearing. Besides, the federal level is taking part in the campaign by providing funds. We have obtained financial aid from the governments of Quebec and of Canada. We are not at war against anyone. We are simply trying to focus on what we think will make the greatest impact as we go out and seek support for our campaign. And we have succeeded in doing it.
It is the result of a consensus that has been established in Quebec up to now, but the same consensus must be extended throughout Canada, to the United States and to the whole world. We organized similar campaigns in Europe that were very successful. What we did in Quebec is very similar to certain campaigns that were carried out recently in Germany, in Austria, in Sweden, in Finland, in France and in England.
In Western Europe, they have a very advanced understanding of the role of forests and of wood in the ecosystem. We learned a great deal from their approach. We are working to extend it to Canada, to the United States, to Japan — to the whole world.
Next week, I will be in Geneva for a United Nations meeting where representatives from all over the world will discuss this issue.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Mr. Beauregard, thank you very much for being here. It was an interesting presentation. I am impressed by the number of organizations across Quebec that is represented.
To follow up on your last comment that Europe has a good understanding of the value of using wood; does that present us with a marketing opportunity? We are great producers of wood products. We tend to rely heavily on our American neighbours, and we see where that got us in the past 18 months with the problems in their housing market.
Do you see the European market as the next best opportunity for us?
Mr. Beauregard: Are you from British Columbia?
Senator Mercer: No. I am from Nova Scotia.
Mr. Beauregard: From the Nova Scotia standpoint, most certainly, yes. However, the greatest short-term opportunity is our own internal, non-residential market. The value of the building that has been done in the non- residential sector is almost as large as the residential sector, and only 15 per cent of that is made of wood, so the potential in that area is significant. It is doubling our domestic market. Although we realize this is small compared to the U.S. market, doubling it is not insignificant. This is something we can do totally on our own, independent of any international trade issue. We just do it.
If we are able to develop innovative building solutions, that becomes a new export opportunity. Instead of exporting 2 by 4s, let us export innovative, green building systems. That is huge value added, I believe, far more than any other approach. If we concentrate on developing this non-residential market internally, that is a short-term opportunity for us but also a longer-term, value-added export opportunity.
Senator Mercer: You make a very good point. Our committee visited British Columbia where we saw the Olympic Oval in Richmond. When the Olympic Games are here next year, it will be a showcase for the use of wood. It will help the industry across the country, we hope.
You also mentioned a six-storey building in the Beauce, Quebec, I believe.
Mr. Beauregard: In downtown Quebec City.
Senator Mercer: Discussion of a marketing program took place. Perhaps a marketing program highlighting these wonderful, wooden buildings that we are constructing would be helpful.
In your presentation, you talked about the misconceptions. I always find it funny that people say that no wood is left in the forests in Quebec or Canada when all we see are woods below us, those of us who travel a good deal.
I want to concentrate on the labour intensity. A strong marketing side exists in the labour intensity of harvesting wood, milling it and putting it to use in construction; and secondary is the labour intensity in replanting.
You did not mention — or at least if you did, I missed it — a program of reforestation and silviculture in Quebec. How extensive is that? We will be visiting places in New Brunswick that are quite famous for their reforestation and silviculture.
Could you give us some background as to what is happening in Quebec?
Mr. Beauregard: In the jurisdiction of Quebec, we have a bill that is being reviewed before Parliament, the Assemblée nationale du Québec. We just came out of public hearings, and we will be entering the chamber for final discussions and adoption before Christmas. For the whole forest regime, basically the balls are up in the air.
It is certain that the past regime, where mill supply and forest management were tied into one single contract, a contract for management and supply, will be broken down into two different contracts. The supply side will be managed by industry and the management side will be done on its own and for itself. Most people expect that this should improve the quality of forest management in Quebec.
A decision was made to proceed with eco-systemic forest management, which is quite different from the approach of New Brunswick that relies heavily on replanting and re-plantation forestry.
The Quebec view on forest management is to try to rely, as much as possible, on the natural processes that are in place to renew the forest and to respect the natural regeneration patterns that the forest has for itself. Each time that we have several options, we should always select the option that is closest to the natural regeneration patterns and natural behaviour of the forest. This requires a large degree of ecological knowledge on the nature of nature: how it works and how to manage and represent it through various silviculture and management practices.
This was always the first option of Quebec, to use natural regeneration instead of plantation. It still is the preferred option for ecological reasons and all sorts of other reasons.
Also, in Quebec, in the last five years, the zone of conservation areas increased from 3 per cent of the total province area to 8 per cent. The government is committed to increase that to about 12 per cent. This has considerably lowered the allowable cut. To compensate for that, an intensification program is proposed to grow more trees in limited areas. The future is likely to include more conservation areas; broad eco-systemic management for most of the territory and, in limited areas, a focus on more intense silviculture practices.
However, the overall balance of forest health, behaviour and productivity is not that bad in Quebec. The misconception that we see deeply rooted in people's mind, namely, that cutting a forest is deforestation, is not the truth; that is false.
[Translation]
Cutting down forests turns into deforestation if the purpose of the land is changed once the forest has been cut down. If the forest is cut down to make way for agriculture, urban development or for a desert, this is deforestation. If the forest is made productive again after cutting, we are looking at good forestry management practices. Preserving the forest is the important thing. In Quebec, we choose to make it productive again as much as possible through natural means. So long as it is returned to production, the forest continues to exist. Then there is no deforestation.
This is one of the most stubborn wrong perceptions in people's minds. If the forest returns to production, cutting it does not mean deforestation. We must clarify this point because people are generally confused about it.
In many countries, many forests are cut, but the forests are growing. In Germany, forests are growing and the forestry industry is also growing. Forests can be cut, but it must be done in a sustainable way within a sustainable forest management system. Every jurisdiction in Canada has such a system. Although we cut many forests, we make them productive again. There is no deforestation problem in Canada and the FAO recognizes this. There are national deforestation maps that show that the deforestation zones are concentrated in the Amazon basin, the Congo basin and in Southeast Asia. In Canada, there is no deforestation nor is there any in Europe. There was some in the past, but since the 1970s there is no more of it. Instead, the forests are even growing. If we must fight false perceptions, this is one of them.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Does the lowering of the available cut drive up the cost because you are protecting more land? I am very much in favour of that. However, does it drive up the costs of the raw materials?
The training of architects and engineers — and you are not the first person to bring it up — seems to be an issue that needs to be addressed with respect to training them to understand not only the ecological use of wood but also the safe use of wood and expanded use of wood construction. Do you think that needs to be done on a national basis? Obviously, you support it through the provinces because education is a provincial issue. How can the Government of Canada help to get that message across to architects and engineers, namely, that they should be using more wood because it is ecologically and also economically advantageous for the country?
[Translation]
Mr. Beauregard: Greater environmental requirements make the cost of wood go up. On an international scale, we can see that in some regions wood is not expensive. There is an abundance of it. In those countries, industries have an advantage in producing commodities. Russia is a good example of this. Other countries have very high environmental requirements such as German for example. In Germany, wood is very expensive, but for the past 10 years, it has been one of the countries in which the forest industry has grown the most. I have noticed that when a society progresses in this way and becomes rich, it has greater environmental requirements, which makes the price of goods go up, but a wealthy society can function and accept the higher cost of protecting the environment and adapting to that.
In my opinion, the greatest long-term cost is the real cost of using natural resources. When the cost is very low, it means that the real cost has not been paid, it has been assumed by the community. Currently, in Russia, resources are being plundered and the true environmental cost of the resources is not being paid. When a country becomes more wealthy and more sophisticated, it recognizes the true cost. In Germany, they also pay for greenhouse gas emissions. They have a cap-and-trade system. This cost is borne by the entire society, though it was outside the economic system for a long time. It is now part and parcel of the economic system, which makes goods more expensive, but it is only the true cost of our relation with the environment. If we do not pay this cost when we buy products, we will be paying them later on as taxes to repair the environmental problems that we created. If we create an environmental problem, it will catch up with us one day and we will have to pay to repair it.
A country such as Germany includes in its economic system the real cost of the use environmental resources. In my opinion, as a society, I prefer that we adopt the German model rather than the Russian model. I do not know what your opinion on this is.
With regard to your second question on engineer training, I believe that it is an important issue. Of course, education falls under provincial jurisdiction, but I think it is possible for the Canadian government to send a signal, particularly with regard to federal-provincial agreements on education. We did so in the area of health, we can do so in the area of training in building science. This remains a provincial responsibility and work needs to be done in each jurisdiction in Canada to improve the training provided to engineers and architects, to ensure on the one hand the best environmental use of wood and, on the other, to ensure a proper use in conjunction with the right technologies, the right implementation and the right design. People have said that sustainability depends on design quality. So it depends on the work done by engineers and architects. It is an extremely important issue.
At Laval University, we are extremely committed in this area. We have a wood engineering program dedicated solely to training engineers who work with wood. Of course, all universities face this challenge helping to train competent engineers to develop useful technological solutions for society. The use of wood in construction is part of that. It is an issue that the universities need to work on, as well as the provinces, but the federal government can also play a role here.
Senator Mercer: Thank you.
Senator Rivard: I want to thank you for your presentation. Your brief is extraordinary and I am quite happy to see that Laval University initiated the Wood Coalition. I think that these are initiatives that need to be implemented in order to convince consumers to increasingly choose wood. Right from the start, I was extremely impressed with the cubic metre of concrete versus a cubic metre of wood and that equals one tonne of CO2. I thought that it was one tonne less, and there are no little negatives.
Mr. Beauregard: Yes.
Senator Rivard: So, it has a fairly important impact. It is true that it is hard to rid people of their stereotypes. Wood is not fire-resistant, however while you were talking about the fact that large pieces of wood are more difficult to burn, I had the following thought. When we light a fire at home, if we put an approximately one-foot-thick log in, it does not burn fully. I am not saying that the twin towers would not have fallen, had they been made of wood. That would have been impossible to build.
Nonetheless, it has some fire resistance compared to other materials, and this is quite interesting. Now, when we look at all the members of the coalition, I think that we have done everything we need to do to ensure that it goes forward. This leads me to a question on the federal North American wood program. You are familiar with this program. Are you satisfied with the program? Are there any changes or improvements that you would like to see made to the program?
Mr. Beauregard: I think that we have focused a lot on exports under such programs. Exports are wonderful, Canada needs exports; clearly, we cannot live just off of our domestic market and it is wise to focus on exports.
However, given the fact that in this particular area we need extensive innovation in terms of product development, we need to ensure that, in our minds, the product stops being softwood lumber and becomes buildings, that our focus on what the product is becomes buildings. I think it is important in the short term to invest in our domestic market if only to ensure product development and innovation. It is much easier to innovate at home than elsewhere. If we make mistakes on foreign markets, they are costly to repair. Our reputation is at stake whereas, if we make mistakes at home, clients are more understanding, we are closer to our clients, it is much easier to fix and to involve the client in the design. In terms of the overall challenge of developing non-residential wood construction industry, I think that it is important to have programs to truly promote non-residential construction in Canada.
It is not so much a matter of having a very big market; it is a matter of ensuring an initial phase of innovation, product development and then exporting those construction solutions to foreign markets. Then we can adapt them to other markets. There are always good reasons to focus on exports, and in the short term we should not focus solely on that but rather invest more energy and resources in developing local non-residential construction products. So, we could also create new value-added networks in which construction companies could work to optimize operations, value-added networks, synchronization and planning with building-solution suppliers and wood suppliers. We see this in the auto industry, meaning that manufacturers and builders work with parts suppliers in very close collaboration.
We can also look at the wood construction industry in that way, an industry in which suppliers will develop pre- manufactured construction parts, parts of roofs, walls, floors, new products that will be able to be marketed much more rapidly. If we work in a business network, we can also exceed requirements, for example, set out in the new Building Code.
If a single company wants to demonstrate that they have met the targets set out in the code, that is difficult. But if we have a network of companies developing integrated construction solutions as a network they can demonstrate this for the system and then apply it in contracts. This is the kind of development we need in the short term to increase the parts market in wood construction in general but also exports. However, in the short term, I think that there are tools that would enable us to better address these issues of cooperation between companies, creating business networks on the domestic market for non-residential construction that are targeted enough for non-residential construction, and those would be elements of a very interesting program.
Senator Rivard: Thank you. You have drawn our attention to some major wood construction projects, which are about to be completed, I am thinking of the Chauveau soccer centre, the infamous university building that has not yet been completed. I almost want to suggest that it is time for the committee, before we conclude our study, to go and visit some sites in order to see the benefits of all this. And at the risk of sounding overly patriotic at the end of my questions, I am pleased to say that Laval University is not only known as having the best university football team in Canada, but that it is also a pioneer in this area.
Mr. Beauregard: Thank you, Mr. Rivard, naturally, we are extremely proud of the Laval Rouge et Or.
[English]
Senator Plett: First, let me also thank you for your excellent presentation. It is amazing how much we can learn at these meetings. I have learned a great deal this morning already.
Senator Stewart Olsen touched on most of the issues I wanted to raise, but I want to take them a little further. Of course, our intent at this meeting is not to get into a debate with you, but rather to ask you questions, listen and respect your answers. I have spent my lifetime in construction and have been involved in many concrete, metal and wood structures.
I believe our architects and engineers across the country have a pretty good handle on what the building codes are and what they mean. They probably do not necessarily agree with them, and maybe they take things too far; I am not sure. However, they understand the codes pretty well.
Many of the buildings that I have been involved in — and you have touched on some of them, such as schools and so forth — are excellent buildings in which to use wood. I am not convinced that the same is true of high-rise buildings. I think that is one of the reasons the restrictions have been on there as long as they have.
I want you to convince me that building a wood structure such as a high-rise building is as safe as a concrete one. Let me be perfectly clear: I do not like metal structures, either. They are dangerous buildings that can collapse under heat and so on. However, I am not convinced at all that a concrete building is not better than a wood building. Therefore, I would like you to touch on that a little more. Would you also touch on the cost aspect of concrete versus wood, if you would not mind?
Mr. Beauregard: I will not try to convince you that high-rises should be made with wood. I wanted to illustrate that it is doable to build a medium-height building, up to nine storeys. However, I would not argue with you that we should aim at 80-storey wooden buildings. That would be nonsensical. I do not believe that that should be our goal.
If we look at the non-residential construction in Canada, few of them are more than eight or nine stories. More than 85 per cent of non-residential buildings are less than nine stories tall. If you look at all the non-residential buildings, including Tim Horton's, many of them are not high-rises. The bulk of the non-residential construction is easily doable in wood, within the scope of the old code and within the enlargement that is allowed in the new code.
That was what I intended to do. I was just saying that it is possible to go beyond the past limits of the code, one of which was four stories. We are doing a six-storey building in Quebec, and it is possible to build a nine-storey building because one was built in London, the timber tower. I am not saying that we should aim at doing high-rises in wood. That is not our goal. However, maybe we can go beyond what we used to do and what was prescribed in the old code; it is possible.
With respect to the real limit of what should be done in wood, I do not know. It is the builder's decision.
Wood is competitive compared to concrete and steel in many aspects. From an environmental standpoint, it is a renewable material, provides carbon storage and does not require carbon emissions to produce. Those are the main points here. Technically, it is possible to use it for most non-residential buildings. However, I am not including 10- storey-plus high-rises. That is a different category that should be built in a proper manner with other materials.
Concerning cost, it is very much a matter of design and good practice — what we are used to doing and what we can do. If you have a recipe that you repeat all the time, you become very good at it. You optimize solutions, and it becomes very cost-efficient.
However, cost-efficiency comes from doing it. The more we construct buildings from wood, the cheaper they will be. We have already seen it. The first non-conventional wood buildings were very costly, costing an additional 15 per cent or more. It has come down to 10 per cent and then 5 per cent. We now see significantly large buildings, such as the enclosed soccer fields, being cheaper to build in wood than in any other construction material. The arch is an efficient shape in which to construct a building. Wooden arches are the most cost-efficient way of building long-span, open- spaced buildings.
In Dorval, an airplane company had to rebuild one of its hangars. They did it in wood. They planned to do it in steel, but steel was unavailable and very expensive. That was when the steel prices went up with China's demand. In the end, they built it in wood; they felt it was a nice building and very unusual. It was more cost-effective and less costly than any other solution at the time.
It is a matter of considering wood. That is all we ask. We ask that builders, engineers and architects consider wood and the available and innovative wood solutions that exist when they build. They should also consider wood's environmental benefits, especially the owner of the building. An institutional builder may be interested in considering its environmental footprint. From that perspective, I do not think you can beat wood.
Senator Plett: We have been told that wood is used in only about 25 per cent of residential construction in Finland, which has a wealthy forest resource. Can you explain why that would be, or is that correct?
Mr. Beauregard: I do not think that is correct. I believe Finland's residential construction is closer to 98 per cent wood. Finland has the highest wood consumption per capita in the world. They use twice as much wood per capita as Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: Mr. Beauregard, thank you very much for your presentation, for sharing your experience and your professionalism. Forests play an ecological, social and economic role. Since I am a New Brunswick senator, I would like to ask you a question. You touched upon natural regeneration versus planting and intense silviculture. Could you elaborate? When we look at the forestry industry and the current crisis, which system is most beneficial?
Mr. Beauregard: That is an extremely controversial question that can be debated endlessly. My personal opinion is that is preferable to imitate nature as much as possible, as a precaution. We need to understand how nature works and try to reproduce natural processes as faithfully as possible in our interventions in the natural environment.
I think that regeneration systems, based on pre-established regeneration using pre-established tree species in a natural environment, are preferable to planting, because typically only one species of tree is planted. We use only one species and we tend to create a more artificial environment. Most environmentalists now share that opinion.
Based on the precautionary principle, in using nature we should first attempt to understand how nature works and then try to imitate how it does so. This does not restrict efforts to increase yields and produce more than nature. It is possible to meet increase yields, even for environmental reasons.
In today's society, in light of the IPCC's last report, we have the clear understanding and conviction that we have a problem with greenhouse gas emissions as a result of human activity and we need to fix this problem. In order to do so, we need to understand which human activities are generating greenhouse gas emissions. Those industrial processes need to be replaced by processes that ensure a balance between the earth and the atmosphere.
When forests grow, they do so in equilibrium with the atmosphere; they establish the amount of carbon dioxide in the wood and if we use wood for firewood or other purposes, we are operating in a balanced, close circuit. This ensures carbon neutrality.
We may decide that we need to use much more than we did in the past, by replacing some processes with others, particularly in the manufacturing of concrete and steel which are not carbon neutral. As society changes, demand for wood may increase because it is carbon neutral and if governments around the world make the decision in the future to implement and seek out ways of ensuring overall carbon neutrality, pressure on forests will increase greatly. In that context, it will be difficult to maintain a forestry ecosystem that fully respects natural processes. We will seek ways to increase forestry productivity in order to be able to take advantage of this carbon neutral process.
But we have a duty to respect the precautionary principle, particularly when we are working in natural environments that span huge areas. We are having an impact on the planet's ecological balance. When we work with forests, we do not realize it — but forests— particularly Canadian forests, occupy huge tracks of land. It is our duty to act as watchdogs to ensure the integrity of this natural environment. We need to ensure that what we do respects as much as possible the integrity of these ecosystems because they make not only an economic contribution, but also a contribution in terms of regulating water, climate and life in general.
Ultimately, all evolutionary life mechanisms can be traced back to the forest, to natural settings. Their integrity must be upheld to the greatest extent possible. This is a debate that is swirling in society and among scientists, but the widespread opinion is that, as a precautionary obligation, each time there is a choice, the option that most resembles natural forest regeneration mechanisms is the one that must prevail.
In that sense, forestry management in New Brunswick is much more interventionist, much more aggressive, and more artificial, and therefore bears the least resemblance to natural processes. However, New Brunswick's forestry management is the most productive system, as it produces wood much more efficiently.
Society must make a choice. To the extent that we deepen our knowledge of our environmentally balanced systems, we will have very important choices to make over what we expect of forests, and their natural contribution as an energy source, relative to other sources of neutral fossil fuels and neutral energy. There will be important decisions to make in the future.
I believe that it is important to have several forest resource management models that build in forestry tenure because they allow us to assess the pros and cons of each system and carry out an enlightened debate. I would be reluctant to decide on the spot that this is bad and that is good. The precautionary principle means that whenever possible, we must adopt the method that most resembles natural mechanisms.
Senator Mockler: The committee will be travelling to the site. We will certainly be comparing planting and silviculture versus natural regeneration. In Quebec, what areas should we visit? We could take a photo of what natural regeneration looks like and compare it to the results of plantation and silviculture.
Mr. Beauregard: In New Brunswick, there are excellent examples of well-maintained, organized and well-executed plantations. That would be a good reference for well-conceived planting systems. As for ecological resource management systems in Quebec, there are many interesting regions to visit, such as the Montmorency forest that has been managed by Laval University for the last 40 years and that was used as a model in the wildlife sanctuary located in the Laurentians for several years now. There has been an ongoing experimental program that was implemented throughout the wildlife sanctuary in the Laurentians, which happens to cover a very large landmass. There is also the forest that belongs to the University of Quebec in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and that is under the stewardship of Yves Bergeron, a professor at the same university. It is just another interesting and different example of ecological management. Those are two interesting places to see firsthand what we mean when we talk about minimizing the gaps between natural reforestation and wood production.
Senator Mockler: I share the opinion of both industry and academia with respect to the current forestry crisis and the fact that 30 years ago, we would have never been able to get governments, industry and ecologists sitting down at the same table. When we look at the actions taken by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and even the territories, we have to ask all stakeholders and partners to picture tomorrow's product. What is their vision? If you are the premier or the first decision maker, in your opinion, what should industry do, given that forests have a social, economic and ecological role to play? I know we could discuss this for hours, but what is your perspective, given your academic, ecological and economic experience? What would you like to see for tomorrow's forests?
Mr. Beauregard: Earlier, I talked about two opposite models that we could look to, those being the Russian model and the German model. I prefer to see us move towards the German model. In Germany, industry has incorporated high-value-added models. Industries have worked very hard to manage forest resources. German forest resources management is a combination of plantings, with a high component of ecological management.
The ecological debate is one that is raging in Germany. What is interesting from my perspective is that Germany is a wealthy, developed and advanced country that, even in the current crisis, is fairing rather well because they decided to place themselves at the forefront of broad societal trends in the world. They were amongst the first to set ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gases; the result is that rather than see a drop in their economic activity, doing so has made them the innovators of future technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases. They invented solutions to cut back on greenhouse gases and are now exporting those methods throughout the world. Therefore, setting targets and high environmental requirements did not impoverish them or slow down their economic growth. It has turned them into innovators and people who are coming up with the solutions that the planet will need tomorrow. Our industry must position itself in such a way as to ally itself with ecologists, as they share the use and need to care for the forest, which is a natural setting. They must see the forest in terms of how it can contribute to solving the problems that we will encounter in the future. In the future, we are going to increasingly use renewable resources; we are going to have to reduce our ecological footprints. It is abundantly clear that some industrial processes will have to change. Rather than wage a war against ecologists, industry must clearly see the vision we must adopt for the future and make the choice to lead the way. That is what I would do.
If I were prime minister, I would support the actions of industry heads with a view to positioning ourselves them as the leaders of tomorrow. For me, this means promoting environmentally friendly construction, zero-carbon construction, and carbon-neutral energy production, because these are the issues we face tomorrow.
According to the United Nations, in 10 years, this is the one issue that all countries will have to confront. Therefore, the forestry industry is well positioned. Its resources are renewable and are carbon neutral. Consider the array of industrial processes and energy production. Options are not infinite. Forests are a major source of energy. The forestry sector is one of the most strategically aligned to ensure that the future of human society is in equilibrium with the environment.
If I were an industry head, I would attempt to understand the trends that are troubling society and develop solutions that will allow society to be carbon neutral in the future. I would develop green construction methods, energy solutions that rely on a renewable resource that is in sync with the planet. By doing so, I would form an alliance with environmental groups, rather than wage a war against them. To my mind, this is an obvious strategic alliance because both parties can contribute to a better future for society. Canada can therefore create a lot of wealth rather than enter into ideological conflicts.
Let us put forward a vision that is promising; let us foresee what our future may look like and take action that will position us as the leaders of the future, something that the Germans have done. This is exactly what I mean when I say that we should move towards the German model, rather than the Russian model. I have Russian friends; I have a lot of respect for them. However, Russian society is grappling with significant and difficult issues. It is making decisions over how land and business are managed. They do what they can, but they do not control much. Infrastructure is under developed. There are many difficulties; some people are becoming very wealthy, but the vast majority of the population is in economic hardship.
I do not want to see us move towards that model; I prefer to see us move toward a model of an advanced society. Yes, materials are expensive, but that is because we acknowledge the environmental footprint these things leave behind. We must choose to position our industry and our forestry sector as a leader in environmental solutions, and a leader in a carbon neutral society.
To my mind, all of this is possible, and is what we must aim for.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: How do you find the labour force? I know this is all good, but we will probably have to redevelop a skilled labour force in woodworking because that wonderful tradition has gone by the wayside. Are you suggesting that we increase our investment in apprentice programs or something similar? How do you see that happening?
Mr. Beauregard: An economist from Alberta, Martin Luckert, recently said that it is a matter of the market. If you get industry right, and if they do the right thing, and if they pull us into a brilliant future, then the workforce will go up almost by itself. The education system will align itself toward educating those people to make it happen. The most urgent step is to develop business models and a vision of the forest sector that brings us into the future in a positive manner.
We can fix the other problems as we go. Certainly a workforce issue is expected. I am well positioned to know that. In our forestry programs 15 years ago, we had 200 new enrolments every September; this year we had 30. It is tough. However, we cannot achieve much before the sector and the industry has positioned itself as a leader gearing itself toward a brilliant future. I see that future. For me it is obvious that we have a brilliant future. However, we need the leadership within industry and within government to explicitly state this vision of the future and bring us there and collectively align ourselves. If it becomes obvious that the direction is right and the vision is good, everything else will align itself.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you so much.
The Deputy Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would sincerely thank Mr. Beauregard for appearing here today. It has been extremely interesting and educational. We offer you the very best wishes in your part of this important industry. I am sure you will hear from us in one way or another again. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Beauregard: Thank you very much for listening to me; it was a great pleasure to have this opportunity to speak with you this morning.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, we will now meet in camera to examine the draft report.
(The committee continued in camera.)