Statement made on 20 October 2011 by Senator Fernand Robichaud
Hon. Fernand Robichaud:
Honourable senators, I still one of those who prefers to have a hard copy in front of them and, at the same time, I am showing my support for our forestry industry — nothing against the electronic industry, of course.
I am pleased to speak about the proposed motion to adopt the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation. We all know that the forestry industry has faced huge problems in recent years. A total of 120,000 jobs have been lost. We understand the extent of this situation and the considerable impact it has had on people and on the communities that have been built around the forest industry. This study makes it possible to provide an update on the companies involved in the development of this resource and to give renewed hope to the workers and communities that depend on the industry for their survival and growth.
We heard many witnesses: manufacturers, public servants, labour groups, business organizations, researchers and scientists.
We have witnessed first-hand all the energy expended by people in the sector to revive the forestry industry and help it become an economic force within our communities once again. With time and patience, the forestry industry will successfully redefine itself and will be able to look to a future based on innovation, as it says in the title of the report.
I want to draw your attention to some of the recommendations that I find particularly relevant and interesting for the Canadian forestry industry. Looking at the future, we must be realistic and candidly admit that we cannot change everything. However, nothing prevents us from acting as quickly as possible on the things we are able to change, thus beginning to turn things around and addressing any problems.
One important recommendation in this report is that training for architects and engineers include a mandatory course that would be dedicated to the use of wood as a building material in multi-storey residential and commercial buildings.
Architects and engineers must be aware of all the possibilities of using wood as a construction material.
Therefore, a concerted effort is needed among the various provincial authorities, professional associations and the federal government to introduce young professionals to the many possibilities of using wood to build solid buildings that can be both beautiful and safe.
Some architects already consciously and successfully use wood as part of their design to create effects of grandeur, simplicity and flexibility, or simply for aesthetic reasons.
An exterior wood finish can sometimes allow for more flexibility, a visual balance and a harmonious integration with nature, even in an urban environment.
The use of wood in residential construction is quite favourable in terms of ecology and energy efficiency and for creating more intimate spaces. We must go back to the beauty and elegance of wood, and its flexibility, warmth and usefulness.
We need showcase projects in the residential and industrial sectors to demonstrate physically how multi-storey buildings in wood can be esthetically pleasing, practical and long-lasting. That is how, honourable senators, we will contribute to developing a "wood culture."
That is not all. If our intention is to increase the use of wood in the construction of multi-storey wood-framed structures, then harmonizing building codes from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic becomes a priority.
Witnesses expressed the desire to see the National Building Code take a leading role in the use of wood in multi-storey building construction. The National Building Code addresses safety, health, accessibility, and protection against fire and structural damage. The National Building Code often serves as a model for the provinces and territories, which are fully responsible for setting standards under our Constitution. The National Building Code currently limits buildings to four storeys; however, six-storey buildings have already been built in British Columbia and Quebec.
In the construction of the six-storey buildings, the absence of harmonization created obstacles and major administrative delays. Those delays could last six to ten months or more and affect the contractor's ability to compete with those who use concrete or steel to build a multi-storey building.
Another reality is that our engineers and architects need scientific and specific data concerning the durability and properties of wood materials. To produce the required wood, our manufacturers need accurate data in order to produce materials that meet the requirements of a national building code. These are all valid reasons for harmonizing building codes across Canada with the National Building Code, with respect for federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Accordingly, the committee recommends adding the National Building Code to the agenda for the upcoming meetings between the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his provincial and territorial counterparts.
The committee feels that the National Research Council has a role to play in the validation of "international technical research." International experiences with wood construction and the technical information available should be provided to the entire Canadian industry.
The committee also proposed that the National Research Council oversee consultations among all Canadian stakeholders with the ultimate goal of permitting the construction of multi-storey wood-frame buildings to a maximum height of seven storeys by 2015.
The future of the forest sector depends on innovation, and our committee is concerned about long-term funding for FPInnovations. During the crisis, governments guaranteed the viability of FPInnovations, whose future is now uncertain. It needs stable funding.
In addition, the public sector has the responsibility to support companies by providing tax credits for innovation as well as through tax and tariff policies that encourage investment and modernization in the forestry industry. How many times have we heard entrepreneurs say that they undertake research and innovate but that they do not have the financial means to go beyond that? Businesses that innovate often need a hand getting to the next stage of actually producing a new technology or product. In other words, without help, these businesses disappear into the abyss.
Honourable senators, some recommendations focus on the social, ecological and economic aspects that affect rural and aboriginal communities. We can increase the forest biomass to meet our energy needs while respecting the environment. Similarly, economic activity can be envisaged, such as berry cultivation, birch syrup production or the sale of spices produced from boreal plants.
Honourable senators, we had the opportunity to taste birch syrup when witnesses brought some to an Agriculture and Forestry Committee meeting, and I have to say that it has a very special taste.
Thus, it is essential to continue the Forest Communities Program for another five years.
The committee is well aware that forest-based tourism is on the rise. It is a promising tourism niche, particularly since we have an immense territory to showcase and we already have a network of well-established outfitters we can count on to further develop this niche.
We have also recommended support for initiatives to develop the forest management capacity of the Aboriginal peoples.
The committee suggests developing institutional arrangements in areas such as education, training and commercial development of forestry resources. The active participation of Aboriginal communities is essential to ensuring the viable and sustainable development of forests.
In conclusion, honourable senators, all of the recommendations made in this report take the Canadian reality into account. Even if, by some miracle, the Canadian forestry industry were to make a dramatic recovery, our recommendations would still be relevant and their implementation would simply make the forestry industry more competitive, more sustainable and more environmentally friendly.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. Fernand Robichaud:
Honourable senators, in seconding the adoption of this report, I move, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, an amendment to the committee chair's original proposal:
"and that, pursuant to rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Natural Resources being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report".