Government Operations Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[Sylvain Labbé]

I'm just out of a science meeting about this, and the IPCC stated clearly the differences between biogenic material versus non-renewable resources. What we face is that non-renewable resources, like steel, concrete, everything we extract, fossil fuels, which is totally different, have been—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I just took a course in rammed earth construction. When I finish being a member of Parliament, I'm going to build rammed earth buildings. That's using sand and gravel. We have lots of that.

[Sylvain Labbé]

Oh yes, there are other building materials that are fine ecologically. I'm not saying wood is the only one. But clearly concrete and steel have been identified by the IPCC as the second and third sources after fossil fuels. The credits are accepted. It's a scientific fact. Deforestation and LUC, which is land use change, are a totally different issue. If you do land use change, you cut down the forest and you bring in a building--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You can't separate the two. I was a land use officer for the forest service, and the two are integrally linked, sir.

[Sylvain Labbé]

But the scientific fact is that the fibre you take out of the forest, which is renewed, will decompose and be re-emitted. It's a closed circle. If you take it out and replace fossil fuels, you have a net carbon credit. It's neutral. It will be emitted there or there. That's what we are negotiating for the sequestration in the next round. It is science-approved.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Naturally it's part of life that carbon-based things begin to decompose and go back into the atmosphere. That's what I'm saying about wood. The only way you can stop wood from rotting is by soaking it in chemicals, and we're frankly getting tired of being saturated with chemicals in our homes.

[Sylvain Labbé]

No, no, there are no chemicals in this--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I mean in a building sense, to protect it from moisture.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Maybe we can let the other two witnesses in on the conversation. We're almost out of time, but maybe they would have a brief comment on the exchange between Mr. Labbé and Mr. Martin.

[Marianne Berube]

I have just a quick comment. You were talking about the mouldings and panelling and that sort of thing. We've been working with the federal government to try to get wood into buildings. There have been a lot of successes. Municipalities and provinces are doing it and taking pride in that. We have to show as an example that we can do it right at home, so the States will follow. They're actually copying our project and form of education on using wood with the Wood WORKS! project in the U.S. But current policy does not allow for the projects we've been trying to work on with the Canadian government.

So that's all we're asking. We can't even get wood--and structurally, too--in projects. That's the way it stands with Public Works and the current policy right now. So all we're asking for. There are appropriate times when wood would be competitive, less costly, but there are other times when, yes, steel and concrete are better choices.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll hear from Mr. Casey for the final word.

[Andrew Casey]

I have two quick points.

Mr. Martin, your concern for the sort of overall environmental impact is exactly right, and that's why we say let's go after the life-cycle assessment and get that into the process. We will go up against any other building product out there, and gladly do so, and we will beat it based on science, as Monsieur Labbé pointed out.

The second point is that we're not talking about panelling. We're talking about major structures. We're doing a lot of marketing out there in the world. Our biggest markets are out in China and, as you said, in Japan. One of the things we're running up against is educating people, changing cultures. One of the best ways we can do that is to change our culture here to demonstrate that we support the industry that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Madam Coady.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you for being here this morning.

Thank you for coming here this morning. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to talk to you and speak to you about this bill.

We're very supportive of the forestry industry, and I'm glad to hear about some of the changes you've made, some of the new practices that you're trying to implement to ensure a vibrant industry, so thank you for that.

I have a number of questions.

First, Madam Berube, you said that current policy restricts the usage of wood. You said at the very beginning of your discourse that you were not here to lobby for this bill particularly but because you want people to make informed choices, because the current policy restricts the usage of wood. You talked about the changes that might be required to the national building code and to other things. Could you just elaborate on that for a moment?

[Marianne Berube]

First of all, current government policy, as I mentioned, does not allow wood usage. We've tried to get that for many projects. That's within current building codes. Codes are subject to interpretation, so again we need to do more education and work more with the government. But we would just like there to be a fair playing field. Even within current codes, we can do a lot more, but there's also the opportunity to get better understanding and look at changing the national building codes. Ontario is doing something similar, and it's been moving forward. In B.C. it's already done. So that would help immensely.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Could you also elaborate on the life-cycle assessment? You said you were undergoing that, but can you give more examples of the life-cycle assessment and why you're concerned about that?

[Marianne Berube]

Currently, as Andrew mentioned, life-cycle assessment should be part of the bill going forward. That can help. Instead of stating “preferred” building products, if you use a life-cycle assessment and look at the energy usage from cradle to grave of a product, then wood comes out ahead, with less energy usage.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Casey, you talked about the fact that you'd like to have a level playing field. I think that was your term, a level playing field, and that was really your concern.

There are some technical challenges with the bill. You talked about how you want to have legal, certified sources.

I'm getting the sense that really what you're looking for is what Madam Berube just said: you're looking more for that level playing field, changes to the Canadian building code, using life-cycle assessment, and so on. Could you elaborate on that as well?

[Andrew Casey]

I think you're exactly right, Ms. Coady. The level playing field is essentially that we now start taking a look at the buildings from a more holistic standpoint. Up until now, we've sort of said “Can you build ten storeys with...or what can you build with, given the fire codes and all the other things?”

We've seen enormous advances in the technology in terms of what we can build with wood, and we've also seen other changes, including the life cycle. I think if you did all that, you'd put everybody on the same level playing field, and you'd have to incorporate the environmental footprint of a building.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you.

I only have a minute left, so I'll turn to Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Asselin, when you spoke you said that you didn't want wood to be superior over other products like steel and concrete, but that you want to be able to give consideration to wood. I think that was your language.

Considering some of the international and domestic trade challenges there may be because of the language in your bill, have you considered any changes? I think it's the word “preferential” that seems to be the cause of concern.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Indeed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Very briefly, please.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Well, Mr. Chairman, we realize that and that is the wording that appears in the bill. “Give preference to” means that when a product is requested—such as wood or steel—and greenhouse gas emissions are considered, wood would be deemed preferable as a material if the cost is the same. That is the important point: if it costs no more and it will make for a greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, wood should be given preference. This brings into focus the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also helping the forest industry.

When bids are being reviewed based on the drawings and specifications that have been drawn up, and when engineers have to select the lowest bidder, they will consider the cost of carrying out the project and the greenhouse gas emissions produced using steel and wood. Once it has been determined by how much those emissions could be reduced, if the cost is the same, preference will be given to wood. That is an even more important determination to make when there is a competitor. That way, the government will be a winner and save money.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

Colleagues, I have four minutes left and two questioners, Madame Bourgeois and Monsieur Warkentin...or, sorry, it's Monsieur Bouchard.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Two minutes apiece.