Mr. Speaker, as we said during the previous debate on this bill, the government is sympathetic with respect to the intent of this bill, and we appreciate the vital importance of the forestry industry to communities not just in Quebec, but across Canada.
We are also happy with the forest sector's contribution to our country's international trading activity, making Canada the second largest exporter of primary forest products in the world, which is why we do not in any way take this legislation or this debate lightly.
This discussion is an important one because thousands of Canadians in communities from coast to coast rely on forestry for their livelihoods. As my father said, forestry as an industry is part of the fabric of our country.
As many hon. members have already noted, the forest sector has been facing a number of challenges over the last few years. For example, today most of us get our news online rather than from reading newspapers. This impacts the demand for newsprint.
A weakened global economy and, until recently, the high dollar have also hurt the international sales of our various forest products.
For these reasons, the government has supported, and will continue to support, Canada's forest sector by continuing to encourage market diversification and the expansion of global markets while providing support to fuel innovation.
In fact, since 2006, the government has provided over $1.8 billion through a number of initiatives to support both the economic competitiveness and the environmental sustainability of Canada's forest sector. That is $4 million a week. Let me list a few examples.
There is FPInnovations, which the Minister of Natural Resources helped to create and which in just seven years has become the world's largest public-private forest products research institute.
There is the $197 million provided over four years under the 2012 and 2013 economic action plans for the forest innovation program. This program is designed to foster innovation and the adoption of emerging technologies by forest companies.
Then there is the $105 million over two years under economic action plan 2012. This is money allocated to support industry sector innovation and market development.
There was also another $92 million dedicated in the economic action plan of 2013 to develop innovative new products and diversify markets.
While speaking of the trade front, the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement has been extended until October 2015, and the new Canada-EU trade agreement will provide Canadian wood products with preferential access to the massive European market.
Considering this is only a partial list of projects, programs and other measures the government has taken, we are proud of its record support to the industry.
Therefore, while we sympathize with the intent of this legislation, this bill has several fundamental flaws which make it impossible for us, in good conscience, to support.
This bill would require the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, before soliciting bids for construction, maintenance, or repair work, to give preference to the use of wood as a building material. On the face of it, this might sound like a good idea to some, but, as outlined in the previous debate, this proposed approach has several problems.
Some procurement principles dictate that solicitation requirements cannot be biased in favour of or against particular goods or services. This includes goods or services related to construction contracts or in favour of or against the suppliers of such goods and services.
These principles of fairness are fundamental to the government procurement process. While giving preference to a particular good or service would certainly provide an advantage to certain suppliers, would we really want the federal government to be seen as blatantly biased in its procurement processes?
These same principles are also reflected in the trade agreements our country has signed. Including a preference for wood products in tender requirements would contravene Canada's trade obligations under a number of agreements, causing us to run afoul not only of international rules but domestic rules as well. In fact, if tenders indicated a preference for the use of wood in construction, it is almost certain that the Department of Public Works and Government Services would quickly find itself before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, whose mission, in part, is to ensure fair and transparent government procurement processes.
The practical effect of this bill is that it would prevent the Minister of Public Works and Government Services from fulfilling her mandate as stipulated in her own legislation, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.
By giving preference to the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings, the bill indirectly promotes one sector over other, also essential, sectors of the Canadian economy.
In essence, if adopted, the bill would favour the economies of some regions over others, in direct conflict with the mandate of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, which has procurement processes in place to ensure openness, fairness, and transparency in order to obtain the best value for the Crown.
I would be remiss if I did not remind that House that the bill mimics another bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois almost five years ago. Members who were here then will recall that the previous incarnation of the bill was soundly defeated at report stage in December 2012.
It is interesting to note that at that time, both the official opposition and the third party could not agree on a unified position when it came to this bill. The votes were split along regional and provincial lines, and many opposition members could see that this bill was fundamentally flawed and did not support it.
I admit that 101 opposition MPs voted for it. Their reward? Sixty-nine of them are gone. They remind me of the turkeys who voted for an early Christmas.
Of note, during consideration of the previous incarnation of the bill, my distinguished friend from Winnipeg Centre and the current official opposition critic for Public Works, said:
We really shouldn't be seized of the issue of what kind of flooring we're going to put into the next public building.... I mean, are we going to have a private members' bill to dictate what kind of curtains we put in the next building we build?
To sum up, while we laud the intent of the bill, the bill is fraught with problems. The reasons we cannot support it go to the very core of our responsibility as a democratic government to run procurement processes that are fair and transparent. They also reflect our country's standing as an international trading partner that respects the trade agreements to which we are signatory.
In closing, I am proud of the government's strong support for the forest industry in this country. Our significant investments in the forest sector provide clear evidence of this robust support.
And while we are sympathetic to the intent of this proposed legislation, the bill's fundamental flaws make it impossible for us to support it.
