Government Operations Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Bourgeois, please.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us this morning to explain this very important piece of legislation, for both Canada and Quebec. I take great pride in the fact that the Bloc Québécois was the party that proposed this bill.

I think it's a shame that my NDP colleague is away today, because if we are talking about wood, we are necessarily talking about wood for framing, about finished lumber, and about carpenters. I believe that my NDP colleague was a carpenter, and I am certain that he would understand the importance of what you are proposing this morning.

As regards the bill and our discussion of it here in Committee, the argument that has been heard repeatedly—and I quote from the summary here—is that this will “give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood”. It is the expression “give preference” that seems to scare a lot of people sitting at this table.

Could one of you possibly explain that the expression “give preference to”—and I'm not sure whether the English translation elicits the same kind of fearful reaction—does not mean that wood will be used ahead of any other product, but rather, that wood will be on an equal footing with other products? As I see it, that is the important point here.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I would like to answer that question.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I would like Opposition MPs to listen carefully to the answers. I have a feeling that everyone is not listening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

To answer that question, I have to tell you what I have done in life. I was an architect for 50 years. I am now an honorary member of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. I began in 1954, at McGill. Just to follow up on what Mr. Asselin said, which is that we want to put a new player on the ice, I would say that in the 1960s, wood was on an equal footing with other types of materials. So, there is nothing new in this. We are simply acknowledging that wood is a normal structural material or finish.

To specifically answer Ms. Bourgeois' question, I would say that, in the construction industry, it is perfectly normal to have a preference for a particular material. When the Canadian Parliament was built, stone was the preferred material. The decision was not to use just any outside cladding—such as brick; no, stone was the preferred material. When the floors of this room were designed, wood was the preferred material, as it was for the panels covering these walls. So, in the construction industry, it is perfectly normal to determine in advance the materials that you want to use. There is nothing new in that; that is the way it has always been.

Indeed, it is the same thing for steel. Developers may decide that the building will be made of steel or wood. So, as you see, the expressing “give preference to”, which is used in the bill, is not contrary to current practice. It is normal, under current practice--

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Excuse me, Mr. Ouellet, we have a point of order by Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm just worried that my friend from the Bloc is missing some of the testimony that she asked us to listen to. Maybe he might want to delay until she returns to the table. I'd hate for her to miss some of this important--

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't wish to delay it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Oh, okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Ouellet, please proceed.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, I was at the end of my demonstration. Indeed, in the construction industry, it is perfectly normal to prefer a specific kind of material. That has always been the case and always will. The principal contractor decides whether wood or another material will be used.

Coming back to wood construction again, Mr. Chairman, it's not a single type of structure that is being promoted. There are at least three ways of building with wood, and there is competition among the three. They are: solid wood, composite wood or laminated wood construction. So, there is already competition among the three. When we talk about giving preference to wood, we are not saying which manufacturer will be doing the work; we're simply saying that the main construction material will be wood. The witness is absolutely correct to say that our wood products are increasingly consistent with the FSC, or Forest Stewardship Council, standard. That takes time, but it is going to happen, and there was no need to specify that in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Monsieur Ouellet.

Madame Bourgeois, thank you for rejoining us. You have two minutes left.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

There is another reason why people are somewhat reluctant to pass this bill. Initially, even I was not sure how I felt about this. I have always believed that steel and concrete were more environmental than wood, because I assumed that using wood means cutting down trees, which is not environmental. I also always believed that wood was not as strong as concrete and steel, but it would seem that is not the case.

Can you explain that for me?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Absolutely. Wood is just as strong. When calculating what is needed for a wood construction, the resistance must meet the requirements in terms of the weight to be supported on and in the building. So, whether it is made of wood, steel or concrete, the structure is designed based on the support that is required, as calculated.

Recently, I was in the United States, in Glasgow in the State of Maine, where I saw large wooden buildings that are 140 years old and don't have a single crack in them. The structure has remained intact, there has been no sagging or anything of the sort. So, wood is just as tough a material and actually has a higher fire resistance than other materials. It is also a material that doesn't deteriorate, which can remain in place as long as any other type of structure and which is environmental, in the sense that this is a renewable resource, since trees grow back. In fact, if you don't use a tree once it has reached full maturity, you will lose it—it rots.

In Canada, we have a large number of trees that have reached full maturity. If we don't use them, we will simply lose them, which is not the case for steel—given that it is derived from an ore—or for concrete, which is produced using large amounts of energy.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Bourgeois, you have less than 20 seconds left.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

All right. I have just enough time to make a comment. As I understand it—and please correct me if I'm mistaken—what you are seeking today is approval of this bill by Committee members so that it can be sent back to the House of Commons for future discussion.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, you're absolutely right. I believe the bill, which was tabled in March of 2010 in the House of Commons, has passed first reading. Furthermore, a majority of Liberal and NDP members supported Bloc members, and that made it possible for us to hear from witnesses today who may be for or against the bill. Our hope is that a majority of members of the Committee will vote in favour of the bill moving to the next stage in the House of Commons.

I would just like to say to the NDP, which has close ties to workers and unions, that this is their opportunity to prove that they are truly concerned about the forest industry, which represents thousands of jobs. I am also asking the Liberal Party to support this bill.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

You're cutting into the ninth minute now, so I'm going to move on to the next questioner.

Monsieur Gourde, you have eight minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Asselin, I understand the merit of this initiative. We are all aware that wood, concrete, steel and other materials are all used in government works and buildings. In terms of the percentage, what improvement would result from this bill, were it to pass, as regards the use of wood in buildings, in relation to the overall wood products market? Have you done any analysis of that? Would it have a significant value?

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

First of all, we would like to see the federal government lead by example. It owns a lot of buildings in Canada. Whether we're talking about post offices or government service facilities, the federal government owns a great many buildings. They have to be maintained, renovated, and sometimes, rebuilt. So, we would like Public Works and Government Services Canada to include an alternative in the form of wood when preparing its specifications.

At the present time, for buildings with more than one storey, there seems to be no consideration given to the possibility of using wood. I am sure there are a number of things that could be included in their construction which would allow the forest industry and our sawmills to be productive and produce wood products that could be used in federal buildings.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Asselin, I understand what your goal is, but I also see that you did not actually do a study before tabling your bill.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

No, I didn't do a study, but I am sure you understand that, by tabling this bill, the Bloc Québécois is walking the talk. Talking about helping the forest industry--

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Yes, Mr. Asselin, I asked you the question and I take your point. You will surely agree with me and all the other members of the Committee that the wood products industry in Canada, both in your riding and in many others, is extremely important. It's an industry that involves major exports to the United States and elsewhere.

Do you know what proportion of current production is exported, compared to what remains in Canada?

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

In terms of exports to the United States, we all know that the forest industry in Quebec and Canada was hit hard by the surtax, to the point where some businesses and sawmills went under. I think that if the federal government were to lead by example in allowing wood to be used as a construction material, that would allow some provinces… That is already being done in British Columbia--

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Asselin, do you have any idea of the percentage of wood being exported, in relation to our gross domestic product? Is it 50%, 70%, 80%?