Bill C-429 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood)

This enactment amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require the Minister, before soliciting bids, to give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood while taking into account the cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of Bill S‑222. In fact, I feel like saying “finally”, even though the bill may not go far enough.

The Bloc Québécois has long been committed to promoting the forestry sector and the ecological value of forestry products. We have long proposed that the federal government use its procurement policy to support the forestry sector. Since memories tend to fade, I will take the liberty of sharing the history of our commitment to this issue.

In March 2010, during the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament, elected representatives in the House debated a bill proposed by the Bloc Québécois, Bill C‑429, which was sponsored by Manicouagan MP Gérard Asselin. The text of this bill was very similar to that of Bill S‑222, which is the subject of the current debate. At that time, the Bloc Québécois was already proposing to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to encourage construction projects involving greater use of wood products.

Unfortunately, neither the then-Conservative government nor the NDP official opposition supported the Bloc's solution, which was something the industry had asked for. In February of 2014, during the 2nd session of the 41st Parliament, we proposed the same solution again with Bill C‑574 from the member for Jonquière—Alma, Claude Patry. Again, the Conservatives voted against our bill, along with a good number of New Democrats.

In September 2020, the Bloc Québécois presented its green recovery plan focused on Quebec's regions, the result of extensive consultations held across the province. It offered concrete solutions to fight against COVID‑19 and to get the economy going again, including through investments in sustainable forests.

In October 2020, thanks to the initiative of my colleague from Jonquière, the natural resources critic for the Bloc Québécois, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources undertook a study on the forestry sector. The committee recommended that the government renew its support for the sector and develop a value chain for that industry by creating new market opportunities. It also recommended that the government create a public procurement policy to encourage buying and using low-carbon products, including wood products, by including carbon footprint as one of the criteria for the awarding of contracts.

That is a good idea. It seems timely to me because with climate change and the natural disasters that are on the rise and intensifying, I cannot believe that anyone still doubts the need to act with rigour and vigour. Incidentally, in parallel to Bill S‑222, which specifically focuses on the use of wood in construction, we should also consider the government's broader green procurement policy.

Let us come back to the genesis of this. In April 2021, the Bloc Québécois organized in Trois‑Rivières a forum on forests and climate change.

This event allowed partners from the college and university research community, people from industry, community and politics to discuss a key issue to Quebec's socio-economic development, the forest bioeconomy.

During the 2021 campaign, the Bloc Québécois proposed a plan to maximize the potential of Quebec's forests whose goal was local transformation, technological innovations development and increased productivity in a labour shortage context. The Bloc Québécois's plan also sought to reduce Quebec's vulnerability to trade agreements. We have certainly had a taste of that. It also seeks to alleviate pressure on primary resources by increasing job diversity, including through transformation. It also focuses on developing exportable green technologies. That is the constructive and positive work of the Bloc Québécois.

We have been asking for years for Quebec's forestry sector to get its rightful share of federal investments. People are not fooled. Everybody knows that, historically, the federal government has prioritized the auto sector in Ontario and the oil and gas industry in western Canada over Quebec's wood. Federal support should, among other things, be subject to a public procurement policy that encourages the use of wood products. The use of wood products in the construction sector is on the rise, and its contribution to the fight against climate change is well established and recognized. To choose wood as a building material is to choose a product that is locally sourced, sustainable and renewable. A life-cycle analysis of wood shows that it has a very good environmental performance.

Continuing its historic commitment, the Bloc Québécois has made a concrete contribution in recent years by presenting the federal government with detailed proposed actions that would support the forestry sector.

The Bloc Québécois idea is simple: The more a company pollutes, the less public money it receives and, the less a company pollutes, the more government support it receives. The Bloc Québécois is out there in the trenches, so it is always up to date on the major issues and the direction Quebec industry wants to move in. Everyone welcomes this option with open arms.

Incidentally, in its green recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois proposed establishing the carbon footprint variable as a criterion for awarding contracts and purchasing in government procurement policies. In short, with figures to back it up, Quebec is counting on the forestry sector to support regional economies and contribute to the fight against climate change. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been demanding that the federal government give Quebeckers their fair share of public assistance.

It is important to note that Quebec is definitely not lagging behind other provinces in that regard. On the contrary, it is a pioneer of best practices in the use of wood products. Quebec's policy of using wood as a building material is built upon five forward-looking principles: promoting Quebec's economic development, contributing to the fight against climate change, ensuring the safety and well-being of occupants, focusing on learning, and promoting the multiple uses of wood.

Unfortunately, the interests of the Canadian oil state all too often take precedence over those of the Quebec forest state. Here are a few numbers. From 2017 to 2020, tens of billions of dollars were given to the country's most polluting sector. Over the same period, the entire forestry sector in Canada received only $952 million, nearly 75% of which are repayable contributions. Quebec's share, assuming that it gets 22.5% of that amount, is a paltry $71 million per year. Let me remind the House that forestry is the economic sector that is best positioned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture carbon already in the atmosphere. It also has a lot of potential in terms of jobs, economic growth and innovation.

It is high time we pull our heads out of the sand and start to urgently address the state of the planet. This partisan foot-dragging on both sides of the House has, over the years, contributed to disadvantaging Quebec's forestry industry, as well as the industry's direct and indirect economic players. Waiting in vain for Canada to understand what works in Quebec is costly, both in terms of the economy and the environment. Clearly, the energy transition, forestry, fisheries, aerospace, agriculture, tourism and culture are all working, but we are not moving as fast as we should. Canada is not keeping up. Canada is a pro-oil state and that is becoming less and less acceptable to Quebeckers. It will be wonderful to regain our self-determination so we can choose the cutting-edge supports for and direction of Quebec's industries to ensure that they are sustainably developed.

We must immediately make every effort to tackle climate change since we are already behind. For some, this will start with acknowledging it. Others, who are more forward looking and have already started, need our support. It is our duty to act and support our forestry industries for our children and our future.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, once again, to rise to speak to this small but mighty bill, Bill S-222. It would require the minister of public works and government services to consider the environmental benefits of building materials when building federal infrastructure.

This bill has come a long way to get to this point. Today, we begin third reading with a real chance of seeing this bill become law in the coming days. I am very encouraged by the unanimous support that Bill S-222 has received here in this House at second reading and in committee, where it was passed and returned here without amendment.

I would like to thank retired senator Diane Griffin for sponsoring this bill in the other place in this Parliament. It began its life as my private member's bill, Bill C-354, in the 42nd Parliament. It passed through the House in that Parliament but died an unfortunate and unnecessary death in the Senate. It was an innocent bystander of some other political manoeuvring. I will mention as well that an earlier version of this bill, one more specifically targeted at wood alone, was tabled by Gérard Asselin, a member of the Bloc Québécois, in 2010 as Bill C-429.

It has been a long and tortuous path to get to this place here today. I am really looking forward to seeing this bill become law at last.

One thing I have not mentioned in my previous speeches on this bill is the role that Natural Resources Canada officials played in helping move this bill forward in the 42nd Parliament. I want to mention in particular the efforts by Sandra Schwartz, who helped amend the bill and focus it on the environmental benefits of building materials.

I would like to concentrate my comments today on the testimony we heard at committee on Bill S-222.

One of the witnesses in the hearings was from the Quebec Forest Industry Council. They pointed out three ways that forest products can help decarbonize construction. The most obvious of these is the fact that long-lasting wood products store carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere as the trees were growing.

The second is that the new trees that replace the trees that were harvested continue to store carbon throughout their lives. This is a more complicated calculation that must take into account the full life-cycle analysis of harvest and production. The QFIC has asked that such life-cycle analyses be developed by the federal government. It is my understanding that those analyses are being developed. They have been developed for other building products but are being developed for wood products.

The third is the fact that forest products can help decarbonize construction because there is such a huge potential for growth in the use of these products. Only 5% of large buildings use wood as a primary component, so increasing that percentage would have an increasing beneficial effect.

Both the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs testified as well before committee. Firefighters are naturally concerned about the safety aspects of building construction in Canada, as they are the ones who literally put their lives on the line to fight fires within these buildings.

As building codes change to include new advances in mass timber construction, firefighters ask that their safety be an added objective in those new codes. I can add here the assurance from other committee testimony that mass timber construction has been shown to be as safe as or safer than standard concrete and steel structures after testing by the National Research Council and other agencies. Government officials pointed out that the procedures asked for by the bill are generally in place in government policy or are in the process of implementation, including the life-cycle analysis of environmental impacts of various building materials.

There is a real sense of urgency in the forest industry for any policy changes that would help that sector produce more jobs and create more wealth within our rural communities, all in the face of a reduced harvest. This bill would do that. By increasing the government procurement of mass timber products, it would increase the domestic markets for our lumber and create new jobs for turning that lumber into long-lasting mass timber beams and panels. We lead the North American mass timber industry, but it is still a small sector and needs careful attention or we will lose that lead very quickly.

Structurelam, the pioneer company in mass timber in North America, based in my hometown of Penticton, has recently been forced to restructure and sell its assets because of an unfortunate contract disagreement with Walmart. Hopefully, it will remain in Canada and regain its strength as the leading proponent of engineered wood on the continent. However, its story is a reminder that the sector is in a vulnerable position, still open to growing pains. A bill promoting government procurement could provide significant benefits at a critical juncture in the growth of the industry.

I spent much of last week in Washington, D.C., talking to American legislators about international trade between Canada and the United States. One of the big issues there obviously is the softwood lumber disagreement. The wonderful thing about mass timber is that not only is it beautiful and safe and not only does it create new jobs, but it can be exported to the United States without facing the illegal tariffs we have under softwood lumber. This bill would help create domestic markets so our mills that create two-by-fours and two-by-sixes will have more domestic markets, allowing them to grow and keep going in the face of this dispute, which has really harmed mills across the country.

I have to remind everyone that, while I and others have concentrated on wood products in this debate, the bill is open to any materials that provide environmental benefits. I met repeatedly with the cement industry and heard of its efforts to decarbonize the concrete that makes up so much of our infrastructure today. The cement industry believes it can be competitive with forest products in many cases in these full life-cycle analyses on environmental benefits. I commend those efforts and would simply say that this is what I hope to accomplish with this bill.

Buildings contribute up to 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions, and we must take all steps to reduce those emissions. Whether those reductions are achieved through the use of mass timber, new decarbonized concrete products or other sustainable products is not important. What is important is that we act quickly to change the way we construct buildings as part of our existential efforts to fight climate change.

Bill S-222 would be a step in that direction. I hope that today we will see continued support so that this bill can become law at last and create beautiful, safe and environmentally friendly buildings across this country, and support industry and mills across this country.

After unanimous support at second reading and at committee, we have the opportunity today to end debate and see this bill become law within a day or two. I hope that all other parties will allow debate to collapse so we can get to a vote quickly. I do not know why any party would want to prolong this process.

I thank everyone here for their support of Bill S-222 and look forward to a short and positive debate.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, on this Valentine's Day, I would like to celebrate a little event. My precious daughter, Sarah, who already has one son with my son-in-law, Simon, is pregnant. I just found out it is a girl, and I am so happy. Congratulations to them. They are an amazing couple.

Also, on this Valentine's Day, as I am destined not to spend my evening in better company, I will declare my love for forests, a priceless resource for all Quebeckers and Canadians to enjoy and benefit from.

The title of Bill S‑222 is an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. This bill is about the use of wood, and it is sponsored by former senator Diane F. Griffin of PEI. It went through first reading in the Senate on November 24, 2021, and is now at second reading in the House. It amends section 7 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act by adding the following after subsection 1:

In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance and repair of public works, federal real property and federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.

In short, Bill S-222 encourages the federal government to support the forestry industry in reducing its carbon footprint. As a tireless advocate for the Quebec forestry industry, the Bloc Québécois will obviously be voting in favour of this bill.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois has proposed similar legislative measures in the past, although ours may have had more teeth. That was the case in 2010 with Bill C-429, sponsored by the former member for Manicouagan, Gérard Asselin. It was also the case in 2014 with Bill C-574, which was introduced by the member for Jonquière—Alma, Claude Patry. Unfortunately, each time, the Conservatives and the NDP voted down these bills.

If Quebec were a country—it is a nation, but a country in the making—our 900,000 square kilometres of forest would rank us sixth in the world in terms of total forested area. Economically, Quebec's forests represent 57,000 jobs, $12 billion in exports and a contribution of $6 billion per year to Quebec's GDP. Underestimating this wealth would obviously be a huge mistake.

With the decline of pulp and paper, modernizing the wood industry is obviously important and it is becoming increasingly so. The federal government has a huge opportunity right now to contribute to the revitalization of secondary and tertiary processing sectors in so-called weakened communities.

By secondary and tertiary processing, I am referring in particular to woodworking products and mass timber construction. Some of the world's leaders in the design and manufacture of wood buildings are located in Quebec. Chantiers Chibougamau and its Nordic Structures division come to mind. Although these businesses still do work in Quebec and Canada, their order books are largely filled by U.S. customers.

The Canadian government must stop dragging its feet. It needs to start encouraging the wood building industry in residential construction here.

On another note, I would remind the House that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has recommended increasing the use of wood in non-residential construction in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help fight climate change.

Wood products can easily replace synthetic materials from the petrochemical industry that have a huge carbon footprint. Transforming wood is a more energy-efficient process that lowers emissions by one tonne of carbon dioxide per cubic metre of wood.

Once processed, wood remains a living material. On average, every single cubic metre of wood captures an additional tonne of carbon dioxide. For example, a building constructed using 80 cubic metres of wood can store 80 tonnes of carbon dioxide during its lifetime, which is equivalent to the emissions released by driving a car for a decade. Imagine the savings for an entire building stock.

The forestry sector is probably the industry that is best positioned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture carbon already in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, between 2017 and 2020, Canada's oil and gas sector received $23 billion in taxpayer subsidies. For the same period, Canada's forestry sector received only $952 million. I would also like to point out that, at their last convention, the Liberals rejected a resolution calling for an end to public funding for fossil fuels. That is pretty weak.

Luckily, the Bloc Québécois will continue to fight for a dynamic forestry sector that focuses on preserving biodiversity, encourages innovation and diversification, and generates wealth.

In this regard, I would like to congratulate my friends and colleagues from Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean for their exemplary work on this file. Since 2019, they have undertaken numerous initiatives to bring together all the stakeholders and propose meaningful solutions.

In 2021, the Bloc Québécois developed a four-part road map to maximize forests' potential. First, the federal government could “implement a public procurement policy that would encourage the use of wood products, including establishing the carbon footprint as a criterion for awarding contracts”.

Second, the Bloc Québécois recommends “increasing budgets for basic research and to develop a value chain for the secondary and tertiary transformation of forest resources”.

Third, we suggest protecting exports of lumber from Quebec to the United States, our principal trading partner.

Fourth, we want to find ways to boost productivity tied to annual growth.

That is why my colleagues and I will vote in favour of Bill S‑222.

On this day, February 14, my wish is for the government to show the forestry sector a little love, to help keep jobs in our regions and to fight climate change. It has to stop ignoring that and instead be part of the solution.

Happy St. Valentine's day to everyone.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill S­222.

If we want to trace the origins of the discussions that led to an act that would benefit forest products, we need to go back to the proposals of the Bloc Québécois. As early as March 2010, Bill C‑429, which dealt with something very similar and was sponsored by the member for Manicouagan at the time, was being studied. The same thing happened a few years later, in 2014. The member for my former riding, Jonquière-Alma, which is now called Jonquière, had also tabled a similar bill. What we realized then was that the House's interest in supporting the forestry sector was not very high.

I would remind the House that, at the time, in 2010, the NDP voted in favour of the bill. However, in 2014, they changed their stance a bit. Half of their caucus was against the bill because it might be detrimental to the steel beam industry. I say that because I feel that there has never been the appropriate balance of power to bring the interests of the forestry industry to the House. It is no coincidence that the province where the forestry industry is largest is Quebec. Unfortunately, here, the Conservatives, among others, have never voted in favour of such measures.

Bill S‑222 certainly has potential, but there is no denying that it will need to be amended if it is referred to committee. The major difference in Bill S‑222 is that it is devoid of any means of enforcement. The bill feels like wishful thinking: It simply hopes that more wood will be used. However, if we are to achieve this, there must be some means of enforcement. This is the case with the Quebec law.

In Quebec, the wood charter assumes that, for all buildings under six storeys, a wood solution must be considered. It is mandatory. Perhaps it is something that can be corrected in the bill. We may be able to do that work in committee, but it would be essential. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, but I believe that it should go a little further and make consideration of wood for federal government infrastructure mandatory.

I will take this opportunity to address another aspect. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I find that the forestry sector tends to be overlooked when it comes to federal government support. I would like to demonstrate that. As I have repeated around 3,000 times in the House, Canada has an economy that is based on two major industries: the oil and gas sector and the automobile sector. Support for the forestry sector has consistently been anemic.

I will share some figures from a study that I commissioned along with every other member of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is a caucus that is focused on the issue of softwood lumber. I will share the figures from the nine key federal programs that help the forestry sector.

From 2017 to 2020, we can say that roughly $317 million was redirected to the forestry sector. Keep in mind that 75% of the money that was distributed throughout Canada was in the form of guaranteed loans and 25% of that money was in the form of real subsidies. Earlier, the comparison was made with the oil and gas sector, but I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Quebec represents 22.5% of the federation, but the volume of Quebec's forestry sector represents a bit more than 30% of the sector Canada-wide. Canada pays Quebec $71 million a year. If we apply that same calculation, that means that 75% of that amount is in the form of loans. Quebec is therefore paid $53.5 million a year in the form of loans and $17 billion is paid in the form of subsidies. My region of Quebec, Saguenay‑Lac‑Saint‑Jean, provides more to the federal government than the entirety of the subsidies that are offered to Quebec's forestry sector. The $71 million paid by the federal government to the forestry industry does not even represent 0.3% of the sector's $20 billion in annual sales.

I checked and found that the federal government provides the least amount of support to these sectors. I see the disparity when I examine the fossil fuel sector. I say that because, on my initiative, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources is doing a comparative study of all the different natural resources sectors.

If I look at the fossil fuel sector, the cost of the Trans Mountain pipeline alone is $21 billion. Then, there are the $18 billion a year over 2020-22. Canada Economic Development, or CED, will be providing $5.4 billion, which will be redirected only to the oil and gas sector. That does not include $2.5 billion in the last budget for carbon capture strategies. As I am not meanspirited, I am not going to talk about everything to do with the cleanup of orphan wells and lines of credit that we have seen since 2019. I just want to say that it is appalling.

There really is a double standard. I do not see why this legislation would not pass. It would not cost the federal government very much to consider promoting the use of lumber in its contracts. It is simply a regulatory measure that does not necessarily involve funding.

We know that the federal government is allergic to supporting the forestry industry. If a small sawmill asks for help from CED, it will not get it. Instead, the sawmill will be immediately referred to Global Affairs Canada. No small sawmill in Quebec or Canada can get support from the economic arm of the federal government alone for fear of violating American softwood lumber laws. That is a big problem. It means that companies that do not even do business with the United States are not entitled to support from CED.

I want to quickly come back to what the Bloc Québécois has been doing to support the forestry industry. In September 2020, we presented a green recovery plan to get out of the COVID‑19 pandemic. One of the main focuses of this recovery plan is the development of natural resources, including the forestry sector.

In October 2020, on my initiative, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was studying the renewal of the forestry sector. There were some very interesting proposals, one being that the federal government start using the concept of carbon footprint in its tenders.

Perhaps this could be worked into Bill S‑222. It goes much further than just using wood in construction. If we go with the idea of a carbon footprint, then all derivatives from the bioeconomy—that is, products derived from the forest biomass—would qualify. Think of packaging products, for one. We can replace single-use plastics right now. It would provide a much broader scope for supporting the forestry sector, and we could reduce our carbon footprint.

Unfortunately, even though these recommendations were made in a committee study, the government never acted on them. In fact, last week we had people from the forestry sector come before us. They came to tell us that the time for committee studies has passed, and we must now take action. We are still waiting for that action.

In April 2021, the Bloc Québécois hosted a forum on forests and climate change. Participants included experts from academia and the forestry sector, producers and people involved in research and development. At the end of the forum, participants reached a unanimous conclusion. From an economic perspective, our best weapon in the battle against climate change is the forestry sector. Forests are carbon sinks. The more carbon we sequester by building with wood, the better our GHG performance.

I recently toured Chantiers Chibougamau with my party leader. I would actually encourage all members to go see what is happening at Chantiers Chibougamau. They are superstars. They use pulpwood, the little bits from treetops, to make glued-laminated I-joists of astounding size.

I see my time is up. I will be happy to vote in favour of this bill, but it needs improvement. I hope that, going forward, the government will pay closer attention when it comes to the forestry sector.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

I am very proud to be here to support this bill, Bill C-354, which is sponsored by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. It is an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and the use of wood. This bill would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that, in the awarding of certain contracts, preference be given to projects that promote the use of wood.

The purpose of the bill is to give preference to projects to promote the use of wood when awarding contracts for federal construction, maintenance, or repair projects, while taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments to the bill align with the government's stated principles for procurement process and ensure compliance with Canada's free trade agreement. The amendments ask that the minister consider the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that may allow the use of wood or any other suitable material, product, or resource to achieve this benefit.

Two similar iterations of this bill have been previously defeated in the House. Bill C-429, introduced by Bloc Québécois in 2010, was defeated at report stage on December 15, 2010, and Bill C-574, introduced by Bloc Québécois MP Claude Patry in 2014, was defeated at second reading on December 3, 2014.

I am proud that our government has the following frameworks, policies, and programs in place that will promote sustainable construction, including significant investments to strategically support the forestry sector.

One of those is the forest bioeconomy framework. In September 2017, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers launched the framework to make Canada a global leader in the use of forest biomass for advanced bioproducts and innovative solutions. The framework focuses on creating green jobs, enhancing supply and demand, and supporting innovation in the forestry sector.

We have also put forward the green construction through wood, GCWood, program. In September 2017, the government announced the GCWood program to encourage greater use of wood in construction projects in Canada. We want to catalyze a broader awareness of, and domestic capacity for, innovative tall wood buildings, timber bridges, and low-rise commercial wood buildings. Building with wood offers many benefits, including GHG emission reductions and opportunities for greater economic growth.

Another program that our government has put forward is the assistance package for the forest industry. In June 2017, the government announced its continued support for the softwood lumber industry in the form of an $867-million assistance package for the forestry industry, workers, and communities impacted by recent tariffs imposed unfairly by the United States.

We also put forward the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This framework, adopted in 2016, is a comprehensive plan to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy, accelerate clean economic growth, and build resilience to the impacts of climate change, which I know all of us here in the House believe in.

The framework's actions, supported by announcements in budget 2017, would enable Canada to meet or even exceed its target to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. This is important for our children, especially my children. Under the framework, our government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal government buildings and fleets by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.

These actions include collaboration among federal, provincial, and territorial governments to encourage the increased use of wood products in construction, including through updated building codes. Natural Resources Canada received $39.8 million over four years through budget 2017 to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects, to promote the use of wood in construction, and to create new markets for sustainable Canadian products.

We have also been leaders on this side of the House, compared to a former government, to put in place tools to assess environmental impacts. We have committed to assessing the environmental impacts of construction projects. Public Services and Procurement Canada is committed to the use of industry-recognized assessment tools for high environmental performance. These tools would help the department make informed decisions to estimate the environmental impact of construction materials and their use in building projects.

Any amendment made to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act must be made in accordance with Canada's free trade agreements and abide by the government's procurement principles of fairness, openness, transparency, competition, and integrity.

We have heard there are people who are afraid this may cost jobs. While I agree that sometimes we may fear the future when change happens, what I saw when I used to live in Quebec City was beautiful projects that actually increased the number of jobs in the forestry industry. For instance, in Neufchâtel, a neighbourhood where I lived in Quebec City when I was serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, a soccer complex was built for young people and adults. This complex was entirely built of wood, a gigantic structure with gigantic beams, which were very thick and very solid. Some said that we should not build with wood, but incredibly enough, the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, showed leadership. Quebec City even built its new coliseum, or what some have sometimes called the “ice cube”, using an awful lot of wood.

This is a Canadian product and it is something we have a lot of here in Canada. It allows us to create more jobs, because construction projects can perhaps be cheaper and so more people can build homes or large-scale structures that will be as structurally sound as any we might find made of steel or concrete.

I had the opportunity of attending the committee for government public works and listening to testimony surrounding this bill. I was surprised to hear support coming not only from people in the forestry industry but also in the engineering trades. People said that we can use this material and demonstrate in Canada that we can build with our wood and then perhaps create markets overseas to show the building codes are just as strong.

We can make sure we build jobs here in our country. It is important to build jobs in many of the rural areas where the forestry products, the primary resources, are found, because there are also indigenous people who would like to work. If we can use more of these resources in a sustainable manner, use things that are renewable, it will be better for Mother Nature, the earth, and all of us and our children in the long term.

I am very proud to be here to offer my support to the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his bill and his leadership on this issue. I am very proud of the work that goes on in Winnipeg and Manitoba in support of the forestry industry. I know all my colleagues from Manitoba are also very supportive of the forestry industry.

Tapwe akwa khitwam hi hi.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to continue the debate on this private member's bill.

I first want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for introducing this bill. In my view, discussions of private members' bills, which advance the ideas and individual interests of MPs and the concerns of their constituents, constitute the most important hours of debate in the House. I do not always agree with all the bills introduced in the House; sometimes I must oppose them, and other times I support them. However, It is always good to see what MPs are interested in when they introduce bills, and also the discussions and ideas that they bring to the House to be debated.

I would like to mention that I worked for a sustainable development department. I was in financial administration, and a special division of this department was responsible for Alberta's forests. I worked very closely with this special division.

After that I was a political advisor to the sustainable development minister, who was responsible for forestry. One of our key roles was to oversee the renegotiation of forestry management agreements with individual companies, something I am very interested in. I also worked with forestry companies in Alberta during those renegotiations.

This is not the first time Canada's Parliament debates a bill like Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). One hon. member told me that this might be the fourth time; this has been discussed in previous Parliaments. Bills C-429 and C-574 also addressed the topic.

The bill states:

(1.1) In awarding contracts for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, the Minister shall give preference to projects that promote the use of wood, taking into account the associated costs and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, I appreciate the intent of this bill, which seeks to strengthen Canada's forestry sector. We can all agree that any effort to strengthen any economic sector in Canada is commendable.

I will be sharing my thoughts on the member's bill. His intention is understandable. However, we must think of the repercussions this bill will have not only on the forestry industry, including sawmills, for example, but also on other industries, like cement manufacturing, public and private construction, and construction in general.

In February 2014, the former member for Jonquière—Alma introduced Bill C-574, which was also supported by some members of his party. The Conservative Party opposed the bill at the time.

As we know, the amendment being made to the act will result in changes to the way the government approaches procurement and how it renovates its buildings. This could be interesting. However, this bill, which will affect the maintenance and repair of federal real property, will cause problems in the public procurement process that will be difficult to solve. I read the debates that have occurred in other Parliaments many times, because I wanted to inject some new ideas. I did not want to merely repeat the same thing other members have already said, because I hope to contribute a more philosophical perspective to this debate. I did not want to just repeat the opportunities this will open for the forestry industry and the repercussions it will have on workers in that sector.

I know that a life-cycle cost analysis produced by the United States Department of Defense some years ago demonstrated that wooden structures cost 40% less per square foot than steel or masonry structures. The cost of construction was 37% less for wood than for other materials.

Operating costs are also less for wood. I always say that a free-trade-based market should be able to benefit from theses sorts of efficiencies and the lower operating costs. Architects and others who decide what type of building will be built and with what materials look at those costs and that type of report.

It is the marketplace that will decide. I think that implementing this sort of legislative measure would require a major regulatory review and update and would put financial pressure on entrepreneurs and some provinces to conduct policy reviews and make changes. What is more, any potential legal challenges from construction sectors other than the wood sector could prove to be long and costly for the government. I believe that the best people to make these types of decisions regarding buildings are construction professionals, architects. They are in the best position to make this sort of decision. We should not rely on a law that would favour one material over another. That would take away the architects' and construction companies' power to choose. They can choose to go with wood if they want to and if they can do so in a way that will cost the government less, or they can do renovations that will reduce the government's operating costs in the future.

I believe that the code of practice and professional standards for architects and builders would be the best place to promote the benefits of wood construction. This building is a very good example. It is built of stone but much of the interior is made of wood. This building has stood for a very long time. We know that building with wood has advantages, and it is also beautiful, as we can see around us. The House was a success for those who built it.

This legislation would also have a major impact on the regulatory regime, as I mentioned. It would probably result in unexpected changes to the regulations of other departments and would establish a precedent that could lead to challenges in other sectors. As I mentioned, the steel and concrete sectors are two examples that come to mind. The National Building Code, which is the basis for provincial building codes, would definitely be affected by this legislation.

When I read the bill, I asked myself what the member's objective was and what effect he hoped it would have on those who bid on projects for the construction of government buildings. If we give preference to wood for the construction and renovation of federal buildings, the bill will indirectly promote one sector over another. All these sectors are vital to Canada's economy. We do not take away from one sector or another. Every sector is vital to Canada's economy to ensure growth and good jobs.

This would favour the economies of certain regions over others, in direct contravention of the mission of Public Works and Government Services Canada, which is to apply an open, fair, and transparent procurement process in order to obtain the best possible value for the government. This for me is the problem with the bill. It could result in job losses in the concrete and steel industries, which would be an economic substitution. There may not necessarily be new growth, but other sectors could lose contracts and be unable to continue working in the construction sector, as concrete, stone, or steel is discarded in favour of wood. I think this is a problem. It does not necessarily lead to new economic growth or to new jobs, but simply replaces one sector's jobs with another's.

In closing, I would like to talk about Frédéric Bastiat, a 19th-century French economist, member of the French National Assembly, and well-known Liberal polemicist who wrote a book called Economic Sophisms. Chapter 7 of his book is known as the Candle Makers' Petition. He wrote this fictitious petition as a way to prove an economic point. The premise is that candle makers are petitioning the government to force everyone to board up all windows and live in the dark so that they will have to buy candles. By depriving people of sunlight, they hope to create economic growth. The petition says that it is not fair for people to have access to sunlight for free and that they should be forced to buy the candle makers' products. This is a bit of an extreme example of sophism.

In simpler terms, this is about the economic substitution effect and consumer choice. In short, new jobs and potential economic growth are not necessarily a source of economic activity. At the end of the day, who will make the decisions? Will it be the architects, the builders, or the MPs in this House? We should allow the architects and the builders to make the best choices they can rather than legislating to impose one choice or another.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the government to speak to Bill C-574, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the intent of the bill, which is to strengthen the forestry sector. No one would dispute that seeking to strengthen various economic sectors of our country is a laudable goal. That is precisely why our government is so focused on jobs, economic growth, and prosperity for all sectors and all regions of our country.

That said, however, members who were present for the debate in 2010 on Bill C-429, which was identical to this legislation and which was defeated, will know that there are several reasons that this bill is fundamentally flawed. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that, even if passed, this legislation would strengthen the Canadian forestry sector it claims to help.

While I could elaborate at length on the problems with this proposed legislation, I will limit my remarks to the key reasons that our government cannot support the bill.

First, the proposed bill contravenes Canada's legal obligation under the procurement provisions within our country's international and domestic trade agreements.

These agreements prohibit discrimination and unnecessary barriers to trade. Any legislation that were to amend the contract tendering requirements to encourage the use of forestry products or to give preference to a supplier who makes it a policy to use them would contravene Canada's trade obligations under NAFTA, the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and our free trade agreements with Chile and Peru.

This bill does not just contravene international trade agreements. In fact, under the Agreement on Internal Trade, government tender documents cannot require the use of specific materials unless they are needed for technical or operational reasons.

The Agreement on Internal Trade prohibits the introduction of a bias in the form of technological specifications in favour of, or against, particular goods or services, including those goods and services included in construction contracts.

Bill C-574 would also impair the capacity of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to fulfill 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. This would, by extension, favour the economies of some regions over others, in direct conflict with the mandate of Public Works and Government Services Canada, which has procurement processes in place to ensure openness, fairness, and transparency in order to obtain best value for the crown.

Let me also note that most PWGSC projects are large office buildings of more than four storeys, and the current national building code does not easily permit the use of combustible materials for the construction of buildings higher than four storeys.

That said, PWGSC already uses a large quantity of wood when fulfilling its responsibility to maintain buildings owned by the federal government and provide office space for public servants. The department spends approximately $160 million a year on office space and furnishings, and approximately 15% of that amount is put towards wood products.

While the Department of Public Works remains an important consumer of wood, our government also recognizes the importance of the forestry industry. It provides, and continues to provide, significant support to the forestry sector.

Given its long-standing importance to our country and to many communities, particularly smaller ones, the forestry sector has received a great deal of government attention in recent years.

Since 2006, our government has supported the forestry sector to the level of $1.8 billion, and it continues to invest in innovative new products, maintaining existing markets and pursuing new markets for Canadian forest products.

To cite some examples, in 2010 the investments in forestry industry transformation program, or IFIT, was created to enable Canadian forest companies to lead the world in developing innovative technologies that improve efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, and create non-traditional, high-value products from Canada's world-class forest resources, and there have been some tremendous successes.

IFIT funding, for example, to the Tolko Industries Ltd. mill in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, helped the company develop innovative technology that allowed it to become the first in North America to produce different types of oriented strand board on a single production line.

Under Canada's economic action plan 2014, IFIT was renewed for four more years to the tune of $90.4 million so that it can help support more breakthroughs like this one across the country.

The 2012 and 2013 economic action plans provided the forest innovation program with $197 million over four years. That program helps forestry companies innovate and adopt new technology. For example, the tall wood demonstration project initiative helped increase the export potential for forestry companies in both traditional markets and emerging onces, including China, India and the Middle East.

On the trade side, in 2012, the government announced the extension of the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States through to the end of October 2015. That guaranteed that Canada's softwood lumber producers would have stable access to and fair market value in U.S. markets. That agreement came into effect in October 2006 and meant that more than $5 billion in U.S. tariffs went back into the pockets of Canadian producers.

It is also important to consider the possible unforeseen consequences if the bill were to pass. Greater demand for wood could lead to greater imports of wood products and that would certainly be of no help to the Canadian forest sector.

As I said earlier, the bill poses many legal and procurement issues that make it impossible for our government to support. In fact, in 2010 when the previous version of the bill was being debated, it is interesting to note that both opposition parties could not agree on a unified position when it came to the bill. The votes were split along regional and provincial lines and even many opposition members could see that the bill was fundamentally flawed and did not support it.

Of note, let me quote the current NDP critic for Public Works, the member for Winnipeg North, who during consideration of the previous identical version of the bill at committee 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 that we build. It's almost insulting, frankly, for us to be using our time on this. 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? I'm starting to get frustrated with this.

While most of the NDP caucus voted against the bill, the current leader of the NDP, the member for Outremont, supported it.

Interestingly enough, the Liberal Party was also deeply divided on this legislation, with the current Liberal Finance and National Revenue critic, the member for Kings—Hants, voting against the bill and the current Liberal leader, the member for Papineau, supporting it.

It will be interesting to see if the current NDP and Liberal leaders will continue to support this flawed legislation, which clearly seeks to unfairly favour one sector over the others and, by extension, seeks to unfairly favour one province and region at the expense of others.

I would like to reiterate that the legislation and its fundamental flaws will not allow our government to support the bill. Today we are seeing Canada's forest sector evolve into a modern, innovative industry with its sights set on new markets, new ways of using wood and new ways to maximize value from forest fibre. Our government is happy and proud to continue playing an important role in supporting these exciting new developments and we do just that because we recognize how important it is to our economy and to our country.

Use of Wood in Federal Buildings

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all the Conservative members, including those from Quebec, voted against Bill C-429 regarding the use of wood in federal buildings, thereby turning their backs on Quebec and its forestry industry. Unfortunately, although they unanimously supported our initiative in the past, the Liberals and New Democrats were split on the issue.

The Quebec Conservative members are not only unable to defend the interests of Quebec but they also do not understand the needs of Quebec or its regions.

It is disappointing to see all the Conservative members oppose Bill C-429, a green initiative that would have helped Quebec's forestry industry get back on track and helped to improve the government's poor track record with regard to energy, without the need for any new investments. However, the forestry industry and its workers can count on the Bloc Québecois, which will not give up. The electoral reckoning is not far off.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that Mr. Calkins is bringing this to our attention, because I think he's quite right.

The motion is that we remove “Every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection”. Well, define “environmental protection”. I'd like to give an example. We just had a vote in the House of Commons, and it was Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Of course, the coalition supported that--

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-429 under private members' business.

The House resumed from December 14 consideration of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Use of Wood in Federal Buildings

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Conservative government will have another opportunity to support the forestry industry. Bill C-429, which is sponsored by my colleague from Manicouagan and which would increase the use of wood in federal buildings, will soon be voted on at third reading in this House.

Supported by municipalities, the Quebec order of architects, the Coalition BOIS Québec and forestry associations in Quebec and Canada, Bill C-429 sends a strong message to the industry by helping to highlight its transition towards processing and develop new markets.

This is also an excellent opportunity for the Conservative government to improve its record in the fight against climate change. For example, France expects to achieve 14% of its greenhouse gas reduction commitments through its wood, construction and environment plan. This government should do something good for the environment by taking the lead in promoting the use of wood.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Order of Architects publicly supports Bill C-429 to promote the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings. André Bourassa, the order's president, stated, “We have the ability to integrate.... It is time to begin this shift in Quebec....”

He also disagreed with the Conservative members for Jonquière—Alma and Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who are spreading false information by saying that we are not ready for Bill C-429.

The Conservative government's inconsistency when it comes to the forestry industry never ceases to amaze us. While it refuses to support Bill C-429, it initiated the North American wood first initiative, which encourages greater use of wood in non-residential construction. Yet that policy does nothing to encourage the use of wood in its own federal buildings. The Conservative government is sending mixed messages. Bill C-429 is a step in the right direction, but the Conservatives are demonstrating, once again, the lack of consideration—

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition in the House in support of Bill C-429, which I introduced in June 2009. The petitioners note that the bill would provide immediate assistance to forestry companies and would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The use of wood in federal buildings will help our businesses develop new secondary and tertiary products and find new markets for our products. Furthermore, timber products are alternatives to energy-inefficient products and products that require a lot of energy to produce. They can also be a green alternative to energy-intensive construction materials.

The petitioners are calling on the government to pass Bill C-429, which would promote the use of wood in repairing and constructing federal buildings.

Government Operations and Estimates

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to the request for a 30-day extension on Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Use of Wood in Federal Buildings

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has presented an innovative and environmentally-friendly alternative in Bill C-429, which promotes the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings. The Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec has just returned from a tour of Italy and France, where he learned about European expertise in this area.

Did the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean realize on this tour that Bill C-429 is a good measure? Will he finally support it?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all of our guests for what I believe are very thoughtful presentations today.

As I've reviewed and heard your comments today, let me say, first, I think the intention behind the bill is very sincere. I think we would all acknowledge that there are challenges in the forestry industry. In that respect, I do believe that what Bill C-429 is intended to do is to highlight the challenges that are reflected in the industry. But in my opinion, from what I've seen, there are flaws in this bill.

I sit on the Standing Committee for International Trade. One of your representatives, who was one of our guests in the first hour of testimony, talked about the importance of the forestry industry in terms of exports worldwide.

Mr. Jeffery, thank you for being here through video link. You may have not been privy to some of the information that was presented in the first hour. As I heard your comments, you talked about the importance of wood; you talked about trying to demonstrate to the Chinese the importance. But it's rather interesting that when I look at the concerns that I would have on this, as a member of international trade, in complying with this kind of legislation—were it to become law—we would contravene Canada's procurement obligations under international and, for that matter, domestic agreements. That does include issues relating to NAFTA, the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. We actually have some advice that preferences for wood and tenders would be considered terrific obstacles to trade were we to be challenged in a Canadian international trade tribunal. We deem that to be very serious for the sake of the forestry industry.

By the way, Mr. Jeffery, as part of background, you may or may not be aware--and I hope that you are--that the Government of Canada, over the last several years, has invested something in excess of $1.5 billion to support wood programs in the forestry industry. Even things like $400 million, which relates to our competitiveness in the forestry sector, even $100 million spent on pine beetle eradication...there's a lot of support in that $1.5 billion plus, supporting development, commercialization, and implementation of advanced technologies in the forestry sector.

My concern is that in light of the challenges that would happen internationally to us, Mr. Jeffery, in terms of the potential to sacrifice our forestry exports, is this the bill you'd want us to go forward with, sir?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Chevrette, you talked about equity. In the bill, as you know, the expression “give preference to” means that if the cost is the same or less, wood would be used, and if the cost is greater, an alternative solution would be sought.

Is that how you interpret Bill C-429?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

In other words, if Canada were to pass Bill C-429, the Canadian government would not be the first government to do this; it would not in any way be innovative in that regard since this is already being done elsewhere.

Can you give us some specific examples, perhaps even from Quebec or British Columbia? I noted that France has set a percentage. Could you tell us about that?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My first question is addressed to Mr. Chevrette. Mr. Jeffery may want to add his own comments afterwards.

Mr. Chevrette, you said that several European countries are using wood to build their buildings and that several governments are also promoting wood. You referred to Sweden and other European countries. Would you say that those countries are all unaware of international law and the fact that certain rights could be violated under certain agreements?

Before you answer, I would just like to mention that someone made that point. In your opinion, is it possible that Bill C-429, which priorizes wood based on cost and the potential for greenhouse gas reduction, would violate these international agreements?

[Rick Jeffery]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for accommodating us out here on the west coast via video conference. It certainly helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions in that I didn't have to fly to Ottawa.

I'm Rick Jeffery, president and CEO of Coast Forest Products Association. We represent 24 companies on the coast of British Columbia, with over 12,000 employees.

I also wear two hats here, though. I am the chair of the Canada Wood group. We're responsible for ensuring market access and market promotion of Canadian wood products in global markets offshore. Our membership is located across Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and B.C. We represent most of the companies there and over 200,000 employees.

I'd like to speak in favour of Bill C-429 for a number of reasons. First, it creates an opportunity to support the domestic forest industry and create jobs in communities across our country.

Second, the use of wood in construction can contribute to greenhouse gas reductions, carbon management, and climate change. As we say in the industry, “Tackle climate change: use wood”.

Third, it provides us with the opportunity to demonstrate the value of using wood in construction. Just a few of the attributes of wood are its energy efficiency, carbon storage, seismic performance, cost-effectiveness, strength, durability, and aesthetic beauty.

What I would say to you is that, in the demonstration context, this bill is very important for us. As Mr. Chevrette just indicated, Canada needs to walk the talk. I'd like to tell you a story about that. We are actively promoting the use of wood in construction in China. In order for us to be able to do that, we have to be able to demonstrate to the Chinese--who build, by the way, eight million to ten million housing units a year--that we indeed also use wood in our construction techniques.

The best story we have on that front is that over 50% of the housing units in China are six-floor walk-ups. When we told the Chinese that they should be building these buildings out of wood, they said, “Well, show us.” Lo and behold, we didn't have a six-floor building code here in Canada. So in British Columbia, we adopted a six-floor building code, much like Washington State and Oregon have, in order for us to be able to demonstrate to China that you can indeed use wood for these things. So we need to build with wood if we expect other people in our key markets to also build with wood. Canada must be a leader in this regard.

I'd like to talk about some of the allegations that are levelled against this thing, and do this from a B.C. context. As you may know, the B.C. government has instituted a “wood first” policy. Over a dozen of our municipalities have followed suit. We have no unintended consequences or market influences that are causing problems for other building material suppliers. Allegations that wood increases costs are quite unfounded. As we see the price of concrete and steel rise, as a matter of fact the converse is true: wood is becoming a much more cost-effective building material.

People say that wood is not safe. The use of wood is subject to national and international standards. That's some of the work we do with the Canada Wood group on building codes in Japan, China, Korea, and those kinds of places so wood can be used safely. Wood is a strong material.

It has not wiped out jobs in other building materials industries here in British Columbia. It has not created bankruptcies or distorted market prices. None of these things have happened. We have that experience here in B.C.

I'd like to also note that the proof is in the pudding on this stuff. I'd like to give you an example of what this kind of wood first policy can do.

We have two iconic buildings here that were showcased to the world during the 2010 Olympics, in which all Canadians showed great pride.

[Gael Mourant]

Sure.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate our belief that public policy should support initiatives that are good for the environment, support sound fiscal management objectives, stimulate innovation and investment in desired areas, and support development of better means and methods. Bill C-429, in our view, does none of these things.

[Gael Mourant, President and Chief Executive Officer, ARXX Building Products Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honourable members of the committee.

My name is Gael Mourant, and I am president and CEO of ARXX Building Products, based in Cobourg, Ontario. I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you and provide some insight with respect to Bill C-429.

Our company is a leading supplier of insulating concrete forms, also known as ICFs, an innovative green building material. ICFs represent Canadian technology that is being successfully exported to many parts of the world. Our wall assemblies are highly energy efficient, fire-resistant, can withstand tornado and hurricane force winds, can be engineered for the highest seismic zones, are resistant to rot, mold, and mildew, and meet the U.S. federal government design criteria for minimum anti-terrorism standards.

I'm not here to advocate for one construction material over another. I'm here to say that Canadian public policy should support innovation that achieves critical goals for our society such as the reduced cost of construction and operation of buildings--including government buildings--higher energy efficiency, and support for the development of--and investment in--emerging Canadian companies, industries, and technology.

Through providing preference for wood, Bill C-429 is at odds with these objectives and can result in unintended consequences. Bill C-429 advocates convention over innovation. Conventional building methods and materials need to adapt and change in order to improve energy efficiency and save natural resources. According to McKinsey & Company, energy efficiency in built form represents some of the lowest cost abatement alternatives for greenhouse gas emissions.

There's no question that wood plays an important role as a construction material. But in the same way that wood construction materials have evolved through innovation from conventional lumber to engineered wood products, there is a need for continued innovation in building materials to meet the challenges of achieving cost-effective energy-efficient construction. Wood may not always represent the best alternative, and the choice of building material and method should be left in the hands of building scientists and professionals.

Fundamentally, though, natural resources, like taxpayers' funds, are scarce resources. Government policy should seek to maximize the opportunity to reduce the cost of ownership of public buildings and minimize the impact on the environment.

Bill C-429 moves Canada at odds with the EU and the U.S. in terms of recognizing the importance of energy efficiency in federally owned and publicly funded buildings. In fact the enactment of the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, which requires all U.S. federal buildings to achieve a 55% reduction in energy use by 2010 and a 100% reduction by 2030, has opened up new opportunities for our company. We expect to complete two projects for the U.S. military later this year.

It is unfortunate, as a company based in Canada, to have opportunities outside Canada driven by public policy initiatives, yet stifled within Canada by public policy initiatives such as Bill C-429.

Bill C-429 sends the wrong message to investors in clean tech. Our company is owned by three major venture capital investors in clean tech and green building materials, two of whom are based in the U.S. and one who is based in Switzerland. Our investors have over $2 billion in investments in clean tech.

We have successfully brought tens of millions of dollars of investment to Canada, supporting Canadian jobs, technology, and business. Canada should demonstrate that government policy supports investment in companies in Canada offering innovative solutions to global energy, resource, and environmental problems.

Investors do not expect protectionist policies to thwart the commercialization of emerging technology. They expect a level playing field. Bill C-429 flies in the face of this and can make it more difficult for companies in Canada to attract investment for developing energy-efficient and cost-effective means and methods for construction.

Bill C-429 represents a threat to jobs in other sectors. The manufacture and supply of ICFs employ thousands of Canadians. For example, Vaudreuil, Quebec, has two plants in that city. Granby, Quebec, has four plants. There's an ICF manufacturer based in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, with two plants in the Atlantic provinces. Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia have multiple plants making ICFs. This does not include the plastic injection moulding facilities, the tool and die moulders, and the transportation providers and thousands of building materials distributors and ICF installers who all look to ICF as a means of growing and developing their businesses.

ICFs are manufactured in plastic and foam-moulding facilities, many of which have had to turn to new products like ICFs in order to maintain volumes as reduction in volumes from automotive and packaging materials have threatened their businesses.

[Gary Sturgeon, Consultant and Structural Engineer, Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association]

Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today.

Let me begin by building on Mr. Atkinson's comments about material selection and specification, and the relation of Bill C-429 to the National Building Code of Canada.

The motto of the National Building Code of Canada serves as the basis for specifying materials, testing, design, and construction. The National Building Code of Canada is an objective-based code.

Unlike a prescriptive-based code, the objective-based code is specifically intended to facilitate the selection and use of any and all materials that satisfy its stated objectives and performance requirements. It's specifically intended not to limit the application and use of any material component or assembly. Whereas the objective-based National Building Code of Canada is inclusive, a “wood first” policy is exclusive by its very nature. Bill C-429 could undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the National Building Code of Canada.

A wood first policy is intended to influence a designer's choice of construction material. Simply, a designer is encouraged to select wood. Wood becomes the prescribed preference. In effect, Bill C-429 positions wood as the performance benchmark against which all other materials and assemblies will be measured, contrasted, compared, and judged for use in selection. Ultimately, this will adversely affect the development of performance requirements in the National Building Code of Canada by virtually substituting the properties of wood as the performance targets.

This is assuredly not desirable, and effectively caps material and assembly performance to equivalency with those of wood, undermines the spirit of competition to achieve higher performances through research and development, and subordinates and marginalizes other preferred properties not characterized by wood.

Canadian building codes have effectively served the needs and expectations of Canadians for over 60 years. The coalition is steadfast in its belief that Canadian building codes already provide the needed flexibility for design professionals to appropriately select construction materials. The very fact that our building codes prescribe certain conditions under which construction materials, including wood, cannot be used is evidence that no material is always the most appropriate choice.

Publicly funded construction should respect our Canadian building codes, their philosophy for development, system for development, content application, and credibility. A policy for preferential choice of a particular building material does not respect these.

This brings us to our fourth point for consideration: a free marketplace. There are significant legal and trade implications that we believe Bill C-429 cannot avoid. In the interest of time today, I think this was well vetted in the earlier presentations. I think this group has a good understanding of the contraventions that this bill could propose for international trade agreements and domestic trade agreements.

As a final discussion today, we're compelled to address some of the claims made about the sustainable attributes of wood. Certainly, it's a positive step for governments to increasingly demand that buildings and infrastructure be constructed and operated in a more sustainable manner. It's our observation and opinion that all industries that manufacture materials and components for construction are rapidly greening their processes and better respecting principles of sustainability.

Some proponents of Bill C-429 argue that wood is a preferred environmental building material because of its carbon sequestration attributes and because wood products require comparatively less fossil fuel to manufacture. While these material attributes are positive, alone they provide a very limited picture of whole building sustainability. Only a life-cycle assessment of the environmental impact of a whole building over its full service life can identify all attributes that potentially offset greenhouse gases and underscore the real carbon cost.

The honourable members have copies of the presentations. Again, in the interest of time I'll summarize.

Life-cycle analysis provides a complete picture. It requires careful and detailed work by the building sustainability and scientific communities. This type of research has led to the emergence, development, and indeed application and practice of advanced and comprehensive design specifications, and guidelines found in such programs as LEED and other green building programs. A wood first policy undermines their development and use.

In conclusion, we can all agree we want our economy to get moving again and we want all Canadian building products to be more widely used. However, all members of the Coalition for Fair Construction Practices believe that no construction material or assembly should be awarded a legislated priority over others. Let professional judgment, practical application, fair competition, and respect for our building code system determine the best materials for the application and service.

All of the members of the Coalition for Fair Construction Practices express strong disapproval with Bill C-429. Honourable government and opposition members of this committee, we respectfully request that Bill C-429, or any such similar legislation, be not recommended for consideration by the House of Commons.

[Michael Atkinson, President, Canadian Construction Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you heard, my name is Michael Atkinson. I am president of the Canadian Construction Association. I'm here today not only in that capacity, but also as a member of the Coalition for Fair Construction Practices. Joining me this morning are three other members of our coalition: Mr. Gary Sturgeon, technical services engineer for the Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association, who will also be speaking before you today; Mr. Ed Whalen, president of Canadian Institute of Steel Construction; and Ms. Marina de Souza, managing director of the Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association. Since our concerns are very similar, Mr. Sturgeon and I have agreed to combine our statements and our time.

Our coalition consists of 20 members representing the steel, cement, concrete, concrete product, brick, and masonry industrial sectors. Collectively we represent hundreds of thousands of jobs and workers from every community in this country, 1.2 million in the construction industry alone. Combined, we account for billions of dollars in domestic sales, exports, and construction services in Canada every year. Again, construction alone accounts for just under 7% of Canada's gross domestic product.

Many of the heads and senior executives of the coalition members are here with us today. This large and varied group has come together to oppose the passage of this bill because it would: one, favour wood over other construction materials, which is not only discriminatory but could increase construction costs by limiting the types of materials available for use on federal projects; two, limit the design freedom of construction professionals in the selection of materials; three, potentially undermine the National Building Code of Canada; and four, possibly violate Canada's obligations under domestic and international trade agreements.

To begin, I think it's important to state that all of the members of our coalition support a healthy Canadian wood industry. Wood, steel, brick, concrete, and other construction materials, are vital to construction in Canada. Together these materials and their associated industries offer synergy. All contribute to providing Canada's sustainable social and commercial environments. Like the wood industry, coalition industries are located in small towns and communities across this country, and have been hard hit by the economic events of the past two years and continue to struggle with declining demand in both domestic and traditional export markets.

To be clear on this point, the Canadian Construction Association and the coalition oppose Bill C-429. We do not oppose the wood forestry industry. Assuredly, we would have been here today united to oppose the bill had it otherwise been written to favour any particular building material. The fact that it is wood is immaterial.

To my first point, the federal government is a significant purchaser of construction materials across this country. As such, its activities affect the national economy and can influence both the price and the availability of goods and services, including construction services, within the marketplace. Furthermore, decisions of Public Works and Government Services Canada on procurement practices often influence not only the practices of other levels of government, but also those of the private sector. Therefore, the impact of any change in federal procurement policy must be viewed through that lens.

We believe it is neither good nor acceptable public policy for our governments to promote one building material--in this case wood--by excluding alternative, viable, and competitive Canadian materials from Canadian construction markets. We strongly believe that all construction materials should operate on a level playing field and in a competitive, fair, and open economic environment.

Specific to the federal government, proposed Bill C-429 is philosophically contrary to the performance and procurement policies and methods currently followed by the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada that actively promote and ensure openness, fairness, and transparency. If enacted, we believe that Bill C-429 would eliminate these fundamental qualities within our built environment. Bill C-429 would effectively legislate advantage, protection, and gain for the wood industry at the expense of other supplier industries to the construction industry. Ultimately, if enacted, it would assuredly not create any new jobs.

I move now to our second objection. Bill C-429 will limit and undermine the freedom of a design professional or experienced contractor to select the most appropriate construction material for its intended function and service.

Legislation that compels or influences our design professionals to specify the preferred product for use where it is not suited to the function or service has attendant risks. Consequences include an increased likelihood of non-performance, premature failure, and higher initial costs for construction or ongoing costs for repair and maintenance.

The selection of the appropriate building material must remain the purview of those qualified and licensed to practise in the area of building design and construction.

The Canadian built environment is founded on this principle. Our slogan is, “Choose the right building material for the right job”. With no artificial preference currently in place in the design and construction industry, the right material for the right job is already being selected.

With that, I would now like to turn to Mr. Sturgeon to expand on our other comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, could we call this meeting to order, please.

We are starting the second hour of our study of Bill C-429. We have four more witnesses: Canadian Construction Association; Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers; ARXX Building Products Inc.; and Quebec Forest Industry Council. Joining us from Vancouver via video conference is Coast Forest Products Association.

I'm assuming, Mr. Jeffery, you can hear me.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I think it's important that people understand that, when I tabled and sponsored Bill C-429, my goal was not to promote the use of wood to the detriment of steel. Steel certainly has its role to play in the market. But we also want to give wood its rightful place in the market. We simply want to ensure that the sun shines for everyone.

When drawings and specifications are being prepared, we will just be putting another player on the ice; that is what we will tell the forest industry and our sawmills—on the North Shore, in Manicouagan, there are municipalities like Schefferville, Fermont, Havre-Saint-Pierre, Sept-Îles and Baie-Comeau which have mining resources. There are also a lot of sawmills, such as in Rivière-Pentecôte, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Baie-Trinité, Ragueneau and Forestville, which are closed.

To answer the member's question, I would say that the government will come out a winner once it has created a structure and lumber suppliers can bid, in the same way that steel suppliers can. And when there is market competition, we should end up with better quality and a better price.

[Andrew Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee.

I thank you on behalf of the members of the Forest Products Association for this opportunity to contribute to your study of Bill C-429.

By way of introduction, the Forest Products Association is Canada's national association representing the forest products industry of Canada. Our members have operations from coast to coast in virtually every province across this country.

The industry, more broadly, is a significant part of the Canadian economy. We represent about 12% of Canada's manufacturing GDP. We directly employ over 200,000 Canadians and another 366,000 or so indirectly. That makes us a significant player in the economy, but also, more importantly, to a number of communities across the country--over 200, to be exact--that are highly dependent on this industry and its well-being.

The past couple of years, as parliamentarians are well aware, have been a particularly challenging period of time for the industry. We've seen our markets go soft quite dramatically. We've arguably been the hardest hit of all industries in the economy. Certainly a number of MPs in the House and some around this table have had constituencies that have been particularly hard hit by the economic downturn of the past couple of years.

We certainly appreciate the strong support we've received from all sides of the House for the industry over the past couple of years as we sort of work through this economic challenge. I'm pleased to say that it does look like there's some light at the end of the tunnel. How quickly we get to that light is still yet to be determined. While economists debate whether or not we're in a “W” or a long “U”, the industry is quickly getting prepared for when markets do return to full strength.

As part of that preparation, we've put in place sort of a four-part strategy. If I might, I'll just walk you through a little bit of that to give you a sense as to where we're going. Part of this bill folds into that overall strategy.

The first part is to make ourselves a little bit more productive and more competitive. The past couple of years have provided the industry the opportunity to restructure and to get leaner and meaner, to use an overused expression.

A second part of it is that we have to continue to improve our environmental performance and leverage that environmental performance in the marketplace, where it's becoming an importantly critical part of our marketing. The industry has done so. In fact, we're one of the leaders in sustainable forestry in the world.

A third important part of our strategy moving forward is the aggressive move into the bio-economy. We have to find ways to maximize the use of the fibre and what we extract out of the forest, and one of the ways we're doing that is moving into the bio-chemical and bio-product field. When we layer that on top of the existing industry structure, we see a very strong and healthy industry and an enormous opportunity ahead.

The fourth part is to make sure that we expand and diversify our markets. We're an enormously dependent industry on exports: $24 billion a year is what we export of what we make. A lion's share of that, obviously, goes down to the U.S. housing market. We've seen what that can do when that market goes south, and that's one of the key reasons we have to diversify and find new markets outside of the U.S. We've done so aggressively and through great support of the Canadian government. We've moved into new marketplaces, such as China, where we're trying to find new ways to build with wood and change cultures.

That's one of our big challenges abroad, changing wood cultures and changing stereotypical thoughts of what wood can be used for. For that reason, we are urging the government to do likewise here in Canada. We need to demonstrate abroad that we as Canadians support the use of wood and understand that wood can be used in new ways that we couldn't possibly use it for before.

As for Bill C-429, we understand that there are some technical challenges to the bill, and if I might, I'll maybe suggest a few places where we could look to improve the bill.

The first one is that the bill makes no mention of where the wood needs to come from. We as a country are great leaders in sustainable and certified forests. We think the bill could use a change that would insist that the wood comes from legal, certified sources. We've seen too much illegal timber enter the marketplace, a large contributor to deforestation around the world, and that has to come to an end. Canada has to show leadership from that standpoint.

The second one, and it's one that Marianne just spoke a bit to, is the national building code. It has not kept pace with the technological developments in wood and the achievements that we've been able to do with wood. It needs to be updated, or modernized if you will.

The third one is to include life-cycle assessment in the choosing of materials for buildings and structures. We need to do a better job of ensuring that our buildings have the least amount of environmental impact possible. If you take a look at the resurgence of wood in the world, a big part of it is because we've now reached new technical achievements with the ability to use wood and the environmental performance of wood. We need to understand that wood--I'll use a transportation analogy--is a Prius, not a horse and buggy.

I would encourage the committee to help educate Canadians, as Marianne was saying, on better ways to use wood. It helps us abroad and it helps us here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Marianne Berube]

Honourable chair, members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. This is an important issue for all of us and we want to make sure that everyone is making informed choices.

I represent the Canadian Wood Council and Wood WORKS! The Canadian Wood Council represents the wood products associations across Canada. It takes care of market access and shares codes and standards. Wood WORKS! is a special project that promotes the use of wood in non-residential construction and provides technical support and education to the design communities across Canada.

First, I'd like to let you know that I'm not here to lobby for or against Bill C-429, but rather to educate the MPs who will have to make a strategic decision on why using wood is good.

For the past 10 years, we in Ontario and my colleagues across Canada have been building a wood culture. For a country that depends so heavily on our forest economy, we do not stand up and take pride in our wood products and resources as you see in very many European countries. We have, however, made great progress with many communities across Canada, with specified wood options and buildings that will leave a lasting legacy for many generations. Hospitals, cultural centres, and community centres I can speak for in Ontario. You all are very familiar with the Olympic venues and many projects in B.C. and others across Canada. These are a few that have demonstrated we can build cost-effective, sustainable buildings using Canadian wood products that will last for generations.

Now more than ever, designers and leaders are seeing that wood has a critical role to play in achieving green building mandates. Wood is the only renewable product; wood outperforms other major building materials with regard to life-cycle assessment, or LCA. This is a scientific process for assessing the impact that building materials have on our environment. LCA assesses the impact of materials from extraction through manufacturing, processing, transportation, use on site, maintenance, disposal, and reuse. In some countries, including France and New Zealand, government policy has been put in place to use more wood in public buildings to help them reach the carbon goals. Using wood is good for mitigating climate change, and helps sequester carbon.

In Canada, B.C. has enacted a Wood First Act and Quebec has established policies for using more wood in public buildings. Ontario is currently studying similar policies. I was just yesterday in Toronto, where we're also working on and moving ahead with changing building codes that will permit the use of wood in more buildings.

Over the past two years, Wood WORKS! and the Canadian Wood Council have tried to get the federal government to use wood in some of their buildings, only to find that current policy restricts its usage. It is discouraging to see this type of prejudice against the wood industry. For example, we were working on a project, a forestry service centre in northern Ontario, in Sault Ste. Marie. They were doing a retrofit and they couldn't even get a wood floor in their entranceway because current policy forbids the use of wood, not only structurally but even for interior finishes.

Other perfect examples that have happened have involved mixed-use projects, such as the new hospitals in Ontario. We've made great strides in health care. A North Bay hospital is about to open, and Credit Valley in Mississauga. This is a perfect example whereby wood is featured in public corridors, exterior canopies. Of course, with large buildings, like many of the federal government buildings, you're going to have a lot of areas that cannot use wood, but there are opportunities to use it in public places.

Whatever you decide going forward, we ask that wood be considered on as equal a playing field as other building materials such as steel and concrete. We are not asking for any exclusion of a product. In fact, the use of mixed materials, which includes wood, is very competitive, innovative, and aesthetically pleasing.

Let's leave a lasting legacy and be proud of Canada's forest sector, an industry that is very much the fabric of Canadian culture, while helping to meet our environmental goals.

Thank you.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, this is a bill containing only one paragraph, but it is worth its weight in gold. There is absolutely no point in having a 100-page bill if, ultimately, it can be summarized in a single paragraph. You will see, as I have, that this one paragraph in Bill C-129 is worth its weight in gold.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the fact that a majority of colleagues in the House voted in favour of this bill. That gives us an opportunity to review it in committee and hear today from witnesses who may or may not support it. Our hope is that when the Committee has completed its review of the bill, the vote will be a favourable one, which will give the House of Commons the opportunity to examine the bill at third reading.

Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues and myself, you will note that the bill has three objectives. The first objective of Bill C-429, an Act to Amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), is to help the forest industry. I would like to take the time to read that paragraph.

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), before soliciting bids for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal immovables and federal real property, the Minister shall give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood, while taking into account the cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, although it is short, this bill is worth its weight in gold. It presents three goals, the first and foremost of which is to assist the forest industry, which is currently struggling, through greater use of wood when repairs are made to public works and federal buildings. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I imagine that if I asked all the members who are here today and support the idea of helping the forest industry, to raise their hands if they are in favour of passing this bill, I imagine that everyone would do that. If I asked that members raise their hands if they are in favour of the government meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you would see that everyone would do that. The fact is that everyone is in favour.

When the government issues a call for tenders with respect to the construction, renovation or maintenance of federal buildings and allows entrepreneurs to use wood as a material, that is free competition. Companies that work with steel are not the only ones that can bid on a building project; there are also companies out there that prefer to work with wood. When there is competition, Mr. Chairman, like myself, you will see that, very often, the work that is carried out is of a very high quality and is performed at a better price.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Committee will fully consider the perspective of witnesses who will be presenting their views—because they are highly qualified to address this and have come a long way. They come from Ontario, British Columbia and all across Canada. The forest industry is not only a concern in Quebec, but all across Ontario, British Columbia and the four corners of the country.

I would like to turn it over now to Ms. Berube, who will make her opening statement.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting us and the other witnesses to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Mr. Labbé is not here yet, but he should join us soon as a witness.

Mr. Chairman, Bill C-429 has just completed another step—an important one. Today, we are appearing before you, before your staff and our colleagues from the House of Commons. I am accompanied today by a number of witnesses, including our researcher who is responsible for Bill 429, as well as Mr. Ouellet, the member of Parliament for Brome—Missisquoi and an architect. I would like to ask the people seated to my left to introduce themselves.

[Michael McSweeney, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cement Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Michael McSweeney and I am the president of the Cement Association of Canada.

You'll know most of the names of the cement companies around Canada. They're Cal Portland, Ciment Quebec, Essroc Italcementi, Federal White, Holcim Canada, Lafarge , Lehigh Hanson, and St. Marys Cement. As most of you will know, cement is the fine grey powder that, when mixed with crushed stone, sand, and water, makes concrete. Cement is the glue that holds that concrete together.

We want cement in Canada to be seen as a strategic commodity and a critical component to our nation's infrastructure. Cement really does underpin the construction industry across Canada as it is the key ingredient in concrete. Even though the economy has been slowly recovering, like most others, our industry has been significantly impacted by the global economic recession, with reduced demand for cement and concrete across Canada and the United States, which is our primary export market. For the first time in decades our industry has experienced layoffs, prolonged shutdowns, both of which affect all Canadians and the ability to complete infrastructure projects.

Our time is short here today, so without a doubt the two issues I want to talk about are the economy and the environment. With respect to measures to support the recovering economy, we do applaud the government and all members of Parliament for introducing stimulus measures that are renewing Canadian infrastructure. We recognize the challenges created in implementing the stimulus package and accelerating investments and we believe there is a need to encourage government at all levels to maintain the pace of infrastructure investment and help ease the infrastructure deficit, which we all know is huge across this country.

When it comes to the issue of infrastructure spending in Canada, we feel that the debate has largely been focused on how fast the money gets spent or the deadline for the money being spent, but we urge parliamentarians to play more of a role in how well taxpayer dollars are spent.

Our primary message is this. Whether using federal government money or partnering with provinces and municipalities, we're asking you to focus on the concept of total cost of ownership. The motto should never be, “The lowest cost wins”; the motto should be, “Build it once, build it right, build it to last”. In this way, we will be ensuring that new projects contribute to achieving Canada's sustainable development objectives.

In order to be doing this, the government needs to be promoting issues like enhanced energy efficiency, project life-cycle costing, and reducing GHGs. And if I might, I will make a plug for one of our industry solutions, Portland limestone cement, which has been approved by the CSA and is about to be referenced in the National Building Code. We believe the federal government should mandate the use of this new and equivalent cement as a substitute for general use cement. In so doing, the federal government can reduce its carbon footprint by up to 10%.

On top of this economic crisis, our country and indeed the cement manufacturing sector are facing a patchwork of environmental regimes, ranging from carbon taxes in two provinces to potential cap-and-trade programs that are under development in three other provinces across Canada, and hopefully a federal regime on the horizon soon.

I focus a great deal of my emphasis today on the environment and the economy because they are inextricably linked and have a major impact on the cement industry's competitiveness. This is something this committee should be concerned with. As an industry that's energy intensive and trade exposed, it's important that governments design policies that help manufacturers like the cement industry maintain and advance our competitive strategy while at the same time enabling us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In designing regulations, the government should align Canada's climate change efforts with those of the United States on such issues as price signals, alignment, mid- and long-term climate objectives, and avoiding disruption of cross-border trade and border adjustments.

Finally, as you know, tomorrow there is a private member's bill, Bill C-429, that is seeking to require the Department of Public Works and Government Services to favour one construction material over others in the construction, maintenance, or repair of public works. We believe it's neither good nor acceptable public policy for Canadian governments to promote one building material over another building material by excluding alternative, viable, and competing Canadian materials from Canadian construction markets. We strongly believe that all construction materials should operate on a level playing field and in a fair, competitive, and open economic environment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The chair sees that it's unanimous.

The second thing is that we are running up against a timeline on Bill C-429. I have asked the clerk to be ready for clause-by-clause at the end of Thursday, so in the event that we do move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-429 on Thursday—which is by no means certain—we'll be ready to proceed. Therefore, members need to have any amendments they wish to make prepared for the end of Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Elcock.

Thank you, Mr. Holder.

Before I adjourn, I want to thank the two witnesses on behalf of the committee for their testimony. We appreciate their help.

Also, before I adjourn, I need approval of a budget of $13,575 for Bill C-429, for witnesses. Could I have a mover?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We thank you again for coming to our committee. We appreciate your testimony every time you come before us. There are always things for us to learn and areas that we know will occupy our time and our discussions at forthcoming committees. Thank you so much. We now want to invite you, or free you up, to leave. We do appreciate your attendance.

Committee members, we do have just a little bit of a tentative schedule. Before the chair left, he and I talked over the possibilities for the week we come back.

I think it's important for you to know that on the nineteenth we will not discuss Bill C-429, because Mr. Asselin cannot be here until the twenty-first. On the twenty-first, we will plan for it to be the first day of hearings on Bill C-429. The first hour will be given to the private member who is proposing the bill, as well as any of his proponents for the bill, if he wants to bring additional business people or whomever for the discussions.

For the second hour, what we are suggesting is that if every party wants to propose two different witnesses as possibilities for that second hour, we will then begin this discussion. Then, at the end of that meeting, we can determine as committee members if we want to extend the hearings or if we've heard enough. That seems to me to maybe be a way in which we can begin the process.

In terms of the meeting of the nineteenth, right now we have two different options that we've conceived. One is having Correctional Services here and hearing from them. We did hear from the PBO on theirs, but they are the last witness we need for the one study. The other is to get a high-level briefing on G-8 and G-20. It seems like committee members are excited in regard to getting onto that. There is a possibility that if Correctional Services are not available we could maybe get a high-level briefing on G-8 and G-20 from PCO or some other organization, if there's a willingness.

Again, by tomorrow we do need suggestions from the parties with regard to witnesses for Bill C-429. We'll ask the clerk to inform Mr. Asselin that we expect to do that on the twenty-first, to just confirm it with him, and then, I guess, work with his colleagues in the Bloc to bring witnesses who are in support of his bill, for that first hour.

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

I would say that Mr. Warkentin has given his opinion, and so have I. I have made it clear to everyone that right now witnesses are making arrangements to be heard. I think it is too soon to say that we are going to spend two hours, two meetings or four hours on this.

First, can we have a list of witnesses? Second, based on the wink Mr. Warkentin gave earlier, I am going to meet with him to explain clearly and thoroughly the implications of our approach on Bill C-429. Even though it is just a paragraph or a sentence, it is critical to the recognition of Quebec's needs and the expression of those needs. I am prepared to meet with Mr. Warkentin to come up with a motion we are both satisfied with.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask that Mr. Warkentin withdraw his motion.

First of all, it shows a total lack of respect for parliamentarians. Bill C-429 is actually a private member's bill, and nowhere in his motion does he mention the person who introduced Bill C-429 in the House. I think that the member who sponsored Bill C-429 should at least be one of the witnesses we hear from.

Secondly, the motion includes groups that were on the list that our clerk sent to us. As far as I can tell, Mr. Warkentin's motion does not include any of the names of the witnesses proposed by the Bloc Québécois. I find that pretty disrespectful towards our party, given that Bill C-429 was put forward by the Bloc Québécois. If Mr. Warkentin says that it was an oversight, that he forgot to add those things to his motion and that he is prepared to amend it, I would accept that he not withdraw his motion. As it stands now, it shows a complete and total lack of respect for us.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Chair, in terms of Bill C-429, I know that there's been a lot of interest expressed from a number of different stakeholders. We have compiled a list of the folks we think are important to have as witnesses. Obviously, I think it's important that we as a committee come to an agreement as to how to move forward, but I think it's important that we have this discussion as to how we want this to work.

Today is the day that we need to do this because Tuesday and Thursday of the week we return, I expect we will be having hearings, so I do propose this motion. I'm amenable to changes, to include witnesses that people feel are essential, but clearly I think it's important that we do give a say to people.

As you know, there have been dozens and dozens of people who have contacted all of our offices in an effort to get the attention of this committee.

Forestry Industry

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by several dozen people who support Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

This bill was introduced on June 18, 2009, and it would help thousands of workers, businesses, families and communities affected by the forestry crisis in regions where forestry companies are located.

The bill sends a very clear message to the Government of Canada and to the public. We must pass this bill in order to increase domestic demand for softwood lumber in Quebec and Canada, and to reduce dependency on softwood lumber exports to the United States.

I am pleased to present this petition signed by several dozen people who support Bill C-429, calling on the federal government to give preference to the use of wood in renovating or constructing federal buildings. I am honoured to present this petition in support of Bill C-429.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I just want to table two different motions, one with regard to the witness list for Bill C-429. I think it's important that we start to establish that. Maybe at our next meeting we could take some time to handle that.

Use of Wood in Federal Buildings

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition here today signed by several hundred citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou who are calling on the House of Commons to quickly pass Bill C-429.

The petitioners believe that this bill sends a clear message to the Government of Canada and to the public about the many opportunities afforded by wood technology and the resources we have in Quebec and Canada, in addition to stimulating wood consumption. The petitioners are pointing out that passing such a bill would serve to help thousands of workers, businesses, families and communities affected by the forestry crisis and the forest itself, which needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible because of numerous forest fires.

In closing, I would like to say that I fully support the petitioners' initiative and I hope this government will consider it.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present two petitions on the same subject signed by hundreds of people from my region and several other Quebec regions who are asking the House of Commons to ensure swift passage of Bill C-429 concerning the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal government buildings.

The petitioners are asking the government to send a very clear message to the people and to government about considering wood as an option and a solution in construction projects. The petitioners want the bill to pass to meet the needs of thousands of workers, families and communities.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of presenting a second petition signed by several hundred residents of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the North Shore who are asking the House of Commons to ensure swift passage of Bill C-429 to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act with respect to using wood in federal buildings.

Canada Labour Code

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-386 introduced by my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel who, on behalf of his political party, is trying for the umpteenth time to put an end to the use of replacement workers in Canada and Quebec.

While Quebec legislated on this a long time ago, workers governed by the Canada Labour Code working in Quebec are not covered by Quebec's Bill 45, passed during the first mandate of the late René Lévesque. This Conservative government is once again ignoring one of the main demands with respect to how the whole area of work relations is governed.

Why is anti-strikebreaking, or anti-scab, legislation necessary? For one thing, the Bloc Québécois would like all workers in Quebec, whether governed by the Quebec Labour Code or the Canada Labour Code, to have the same rights. The Conservative government's stubbornness is creating two distinct classes of workers in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way of recognizing the outstanding contribution of all these men and women who are helping build the Quebec society on a day-to-day basis is to show genuine respect for their rights, starting by banning the use of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts.

Anti-scab legislation would ensure that workers governed by federal legislation enjoy balanced bargaining power, and would keep tension on the picket lines to a minimum. That is the basic objective of Bill C-386, which would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers.

At this point, I would like to list what the Conservative government has done in response to the many expectations of the labour movement. It is a very short list. How much has the Conservative government given to help the unemployed, the tens of thousands of workers who have lost their job in the forestry sector? Peanuts, compared to the billions of dollars it has showered on Ontario to help auto workers. What has the Conservative government done to eliminate the two-week waiting period for people who become unemployed? Nothing.

Workers who lose their jobs go through stress and anxiety. Their income is cut off at the source. Meanwhile, they are expected to wait patiently for a Service Canada official to examine their file, and often they have to endure processing delays, not to mention the 1-800 telephone line, which is insane. In addition to waiting for an answer, the poor jobless people have to put up with this irresponsible treatment.

I will continue with my list, because since I came to the House of Commons in 2004, my social priorities have always included the unemployed and older workers. This government is still refusing to support our proposal to increase the maximum EI benefit period for workers with a serious illness from 15 to 50 weeks. It is currently 15 weeks, as if someone's cancer could be treated in 15 weeks.

I could pull out the list of measures we have called for in recent years and the many bills we have introduced to help our workers. The list of no's from ministers and members is as long as our list of requests. By the way, the government voted against Bill C-429, which would have promoted the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings and would have helped workers in Quebec. But no, the government ignored our workers again. That was another trademark vote by the Conservatives.

I would like to remind hon. members once again of one of the most anti-worker statements ever heard here in the House. On December 3, 2009, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain said this:

I do not see anything in the bill's proposed provision that would help boost Canada's ability to create jobs and to be more competitive in today's economy. What I do see in the bill is a recipe for instability and uncertainty in Canadian labour relations.

What an explanation. According to him, having workers out on the street for months or years is what will stimulate employment, as will the uncertainty of the workers who do not have sufficient power to assert their legitimate rights. What is the government doing about the uncertainty experienced by the many families of strikers affected by these lasting disputes? Nothing, nothing and more nothing. It prefers to build lakes—that is a good one—for journalists and delegates at the G8. In their right-wing vocabulary, the Conservatives call this “stimulating the economy”. I call it keeping families in poverty.

Let us get back to the Conservative government's sad record.

Here is a clear example of that record. During the CN conflict, the Conservative government passed special legislation with respect to Canadian National. The latter had been training its managers and a large group of non-unionized employees for several months in order to maintain service. In the case of CN, they were maintaining over 60% of service. However, Canadian Pacific, which has two parallel lines across Canada—one used by CN and the other by CP—could have covered the other 40% that CN claimed it could not. They could also have resorted to trucking, as well as the short lines in the regions, to serve the Canadian public.

For the Montreal region, for example, AMT had signed an agreement for continuous passenger service and CN would have covered not just 100%, but 120% of the service provided to its clients.

Given all these responsibilities and possibilities, I wonder why the Conservatives thought there was a crisis and why was there a need for additional service? We have to allow negotiations between the parties to continue in good faith and force them to agree on a collective agreement, and not vote on a special law to force workers back to work.

I would also point out to my hon. colleagues that CN is a private corporation, which is why I do not understand why the government became involved in the dispute. Indeed, when it comes to private corporations, we believe that they are in a position to negotiate with workers themselves and capable of doing so, but they do not, nor do they have to. All they have to do is call up the government and say that they are going on strike and will not be able to provide the service. Since it is a transportation service, it is very important. What did the government do? It passed special legislation to force the workers back to work. They forget about negotiating; they make them work and everything goes back to what it was before, without any thought given to negotiating with the workers. I find that unreasonable on the government's part. It is always trying to denigrate workers. Yet our workers form the foundation of the Canadian and Quebec economy. And they are the first people the government tries to steal from.

We saw it again with the $57 billion that the government stole from workers. It is not enough to tax them or to take taxes off at the source, it always wants a little bit more. As for employers, their taxes have been cut. It is not employers that are producing what Canada needs to survive. It comes from the taxes paid by workers.

I could also talk about the theft from the employment insurance fund surplus. My mother always told me that when you take something that is not yours, it is stealing. When they dipped into the employment insurance fund that was not theirs, it was stealing. I will not contradict my mother here today. If she said it, it is because it is true. Nothing will change my mind.

Back when the Conservatives were in opposition, they constantly condemned the Liberals' practice of pillaging the employment insurance fund. Now, with Bill C-9, they are about to keep doing the same thing. How? By wiping the slate clean, as they say. The Conservatives are telling workers and employers, the people to whom that money belongs, that they should forget about recuperating the $57 billion that the government siphoned off over the years.

The Prime Minister himself once recognized that employment insurance fund money was misappropriated to pay down the deficit. He promised workers that he would repay the $57 billion that Ottawa diverted. Now he is breaking that promise.

The proposed new employment insurance measures are particularly sickening because the Conservatives are trying to hide them among the dozens of other initiatives in Bill C-9. Unfortunately, these kinds of anti-democratic manoeuvres have become par for the course with the Conservative government.

With the end of the parliamentary session just days away, on behalf of unionized workers subject to the Canada Labour Code, and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, we urge the Conservative ministers and members to say yes to anti-scab legislation.

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Chair, 8,300 jobs were saved, but how many have been lost as a result of years of inaction? In light of the current situation, I have a hard time showing my gratitude to the minister for what he is telling us.

This might be a good time to point out to the minister that Bill C-429, introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, is currently before the House. We think this bill is an excellent initiative to help the forestry industry by promoting the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings. The bill was supported by all of the opposition parties. Only the Conservatives opposed it.

What will the minister do when the majority of this House is calling for the implementation of this bill? What will he do when the time comes to once again vote on this bill?

Use of Wood

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, recently the House of Commons voted in favour of Bill C-429 to promote the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings.

The federal government has just announced the construction of two office towers in Gatineau. This is an excellent opportunity for the federal government to promote the use of wood in the construction of these two buildings.

A number of countries such as Sweden, France, Austria and Norway, have already implemented similar measures that have had a significant environmental and economic impact.

Over the past few years, the forestry industry in the Outaouais, and in a number of regions in Quebec, has lost thousands of jobs. The Conservative government could show vision and send a positive message to thousands of forestry workers in Quebec by promoting this type of policy.

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

On June 2 I'm suggesting that we have what I'm going to call a panel of employees, the people who work in the various ministers' offices. I think I stopped at Sébastien Togneri, in Minister Paradis's office; Kimberley Michelutti, who is in Parliamentary Secretary Jean's office; and Doug Maley, who is in Western Economic Diversification. He is a public servant who has been part of the e-mails that have gone back and forth.

I'm suggesting that on June 7 we continue and have SNC-Lavalin. Again, we need to move forward on that committee business.

I think there was discussion about having Helena Guergis on June 9. I'd like to see her come before committee .

We also have to do Bill C-429. I suggested a date of June 14. Or maybe we need to continue with the Jaffer study. It depends on what continues.

On June 16, which is one of the final days of committee, I'm suggesting Rahim Jaffer.

That's what I'd like to suggest we proceed with in this committee.

Last week I gave lots of suggestions and handed the clerk a long list, and then I find that we have no committee witnesses. I want to make sure that we have committee witnesses. I want to make sure that everyone on that list is open and available to come before this committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-429 under private members' business.

The House resumed from April 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Use of Wood in Federal Buildings

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, members of the House of Commons will be voting on Bill C-429 on the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings.

A number of countries such as France, Norway and Sweden have implemented similar measures to promote the use of wood in public buildings. Quebec and British Columbia also have policies to that effect. Yesterday, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion in support of Bill C-429.

A number of Quebec and Canadian associations representing thousands of groups have also expressed their support for the bill, including the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Quebec Wood Export Bureau and the Québec Forest Industry Council.

We have the means to move forward with this type of measure. That is why I hope we can count on the support of all hon. members in this House.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my last five minutes I will conclude the debate on Bill C-429, which I introduced in the House and which will be voted on at second reading next week. I hope that the majority of parliamentarians in this House—whether they are members of the Liberal party, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, where there is unanimous support—will ensure that Bill C-429 passes second reading and goes to committee.

When we introduce a bill, we know that there is always room for changes and improvements. The parliamentary committee will hear from those who support the bill as well as those who do not because of concerns or simply because of their profession, such as contractors, architects or engineers.

The Bloc Québécois decided to introduce Bill C-429 after extensive consultation with the Bloc's colleagues. We know that a number of regions in Quebec, as well as some in Canada, depend almost exclusively on the forestry industry. That is the case for some villages. In my riding—in places such as Rivière-Pentecôte, Baie-Trinité, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Pointe-aux-Outardes with Scierie des Outardes, and Ragueneau—the vast majority of the workers in these villages or towns work at the sawmill or the Baie-Comeau paper mill.

I would like to remind members that, on the North Shore, the forestry industry was the main industry. There also used to be a fishing industry at one time. It is quite normal and logical that a member would be concerned with developing these natural resources. The region's history is intertwined with the forestry industry. As members of Parliament, we have met with workers from the forestry industry who worked at a sawmill for a number of years and then, unfortunately, lost their jobs.

We know all about it. The NDP member just talked about it. The Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted for the softwood lumber agreement. The problems began when Americans charged a surtax on our lumber exports to the United States. We had no choice but to settle and we did so at the request of the forestry industry. We did not do it of our own accord, but at the request of the forestry industry, which was on the brink. Bank managers were waiting for companies to settle their debts. The Americans could afford to wait, and they knew that the longer they waited the more the Quebec forestry industry would slump. Today, it is having trouble getting back on its feet.

The odd thing is that the automobile industry was having the same problem during the economic crisis and the government did not hesitate to inject $10 billion into Ontario alone; but it injected only $270 million into the forestry industry for all of Canada in 2009-10. For workers who have lost their jobs, we asked the government for loan guarantees. The government dragged its heels and said that because of the agreement, it could not grant loan guarantees to the forestry industry. We also asked the government to provide training through an adjustment program for older workers who had lost their jobs in order to retrain them for the job market. We also asked for improvements to employment insurance: the elimination of the two week waiting period, the infamous 60% to 65% calculation, and eligibility after 360 hours without transitional measures instead of 560 hours.

If the government had acted in good faith, it could have used these measures to directly or indirectly help all those who unfortunately have lost their employment in the forestry industry.

There is a still one week left for those who are unsure. I listened to the hon. member and the two parliamentary secretaries who spoke earlier. I do not know who wrote their speeches, but they have completely missed the mark.

There is one week left. I hope that in the vote next Wednesday, the majority of the House will support Bill C-429.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I like the parliamentary secretary, but his statement was absolute rubbish.

First off, we have to be very clear here. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that contravenes any international obligations pertaining to Canada. It is simply not true.

Second, and this is perhaps even more important, when we look at what has happened with the wood industry, the softwood lumber industry particularly, in this country over the last few years, it has been self-inflicted by the current government, particularly because of the softwood lumber sellout that has led to the death of 20,000 jobs across this country.

When we held hearings into the softwood lumber sellout at the international trade committee, it was very clear what the implications were. This was a sellout with implications that would lead to the death of thousands of jobs in this country and would kill dozens of mills. Yet, the Conservatives, with the support of Liberals and, I have to say with great regret, the Bloc, the three other parties in this House ganged up together and the result has been the death of much of the industry.

In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, we were at the epicentre of this killing of our softwood lumber industry. We lost three mills after the signing of the softwood lumber sellout. We lost Interfor, Canfor and Western Forest Products, one after the other. Two thousand direct jobs were lost. Six thousand jobs were lost indirectly. All because the current government put its faith in David Emerson who knew full well that what this would do is kill the industry. But he figured that nobody on the Conservative government's side would actually do any due diligence around his work; what the Conservatives would do is cut some ribbons, say that they had achieved a victory, give $1 billion to the United States and, somehow, everything would turn out all right.

Well, that is not how it has turned out. We have seen dozens of mills close, thousands of jobs lost, and the Canadian taxpayer and Canadian softwood communities continue to pick up the tab. We are debating, currently, Bill C-9, which would imposes a $60 million additional penalty on softwood communities across this country, brought in by the Conservatives. We now have in front of the arbitral panel a further hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially, in penalties, given Quebec and Ontario forestry practices, legitimate for the softwood lumber sellout, now considered the object of fines, and we have looming in the distance B.C. stumpage being challenged with potential penalties of up to half a billion dollars. All because the Conservatives did not actually read the agreement before signing it. All because these Conservatives were recklessly irresponsible with our wood industry.

We have a chance to start to rectify what was broken by these Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals and, I dare say, the Bloc; that is, by taking a first step to actually start to repair what was broken by adopting Bill C-429. It is a small step forward. It is not going to get back the 20,000 jobs that were lost directly and the 60,000 jobs that were lost indirectly. It is quite true that the reckless abandon with which the current government destroyed the softwood lumber industry is going to take time and a lot of work to repair. But it is true that giving preference to concepts that promote wood, while balancing off costs, while balancing off greenhouse gas submissions, as is included in this private member's bill, would allow for those first few steps. We produce quality products, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said very clearly. British Columbia produces about half of that wood across the country. I need to quote again what the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan quoted, that British Columbia's skilled workmanship and advanced technology help to provide high-performance structural materials and unique appearance grade wood components.

There is no doubt of the quality. There is no doubt of the efficiency of our workers in British Columbia and right across the country. What is in doubt is the current government's capacity to understand the magnitude of what it did in 2006 when it imposed the softwood lumber sellout.

Liberals went along. The Bloc went along. That is true, but it is the Conservatives who provided the getaway car while they emptied out everything that was of value in the softwood lumber industry and drove away, completely irresponsibly, killing thousands of family-sustaining jobs across this country with that vote.

Parliamentarians, particularly of those three parties, have a responsibility to adopt this private member's bill to start to address what they have broken. Every single Conservative MP in this House is responsible for the devastation in the softwood lumber industry. Every single Liberal MP in this House is responsible and every single Bloc MP is responsible.

At least the Bloc is stepping forward with some ways to repair the mistake that was made in 2006.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Before discussing the government's position on this bill, I would like to commend the members opposite for their interest in the forest industry and forest sector.

Canada is the world's largest exporter of forest products. Last year alone, the forest industry contributed $20 billion to Canada's trade balance and accounted for about 1.9% of Canada's gross domestic product.

For Canadians, forest products are integral to our everyday lives and the great swaths of trees that sweep across our land mass are part of our nation's identity. However, for the 274,000 people directly employed by the forest industry last year, forestry is their livelihood. It is especially important in the approximately 300 rural and remote communities where it accounts for at least one-half of the economic base.

As we all know, global economic conditions have had a serious impact on the industry and on the sector. The reduction in new housing in the United States of America, for example, is one of the major factors hurting Canadian lumber exports.

I want to assure the hon. members that the government takes this matter very seriously. In January 2009, the Minister of Finance tabled a budget that launched Canada's economic action plan. He laid out full and comprehensive plans for many of the economic challenges we are facing as a country that included some very important measures to help the forest sector weather the storm, as well as allocating millions of dollars over two years to carry out these measures.

Let me help members recall some of the details. Canada's economic action plan provided $170 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada for measures to secure a more sustainable industry. The funding will help companies develop new products, processes and seek new opportunities in the global market place.

This included $80 million for the transformative technologies program administered by FPInnovations. FPInnovations is a not-for-profit forest research institute that focuses on the development of emerging and breakthrough technologies related to forest biomass utilization, nanotechnology and next generation forest products.

An additional $40 million is being provided in 2010-11 to develop pilot-scale demonstration projects of new products that can be used in commercial applications.

Canada's economic action plan also provided Natural Resources Canada with $40 million over two years for the Canada wood, value to wood and North America wood first programs to help forestry companies market innovative projects internationally. An additional $10 million is intended to support large-scale demonstrations of Canadian-style use of wood for construction in targeted offshore markets and non-traditional use of wood in domestic markets.

Since the release of the economic action plan, the government has also announced the creation of a $1 billion program to support environmental improvements for the pulp and paper industry. This will help pulp and paper mills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while helping them become leaders in the production of a renewable energy from biomass.

I am sure members will agree these are worthy measures in support of market diversification and innovation initiatives that will help the forestry industry and the forestry sector.

In addition, let us not forget the $7.8 billion worth of measures under the Canada economic action plan to build housing, encourage home ownership and enhance energy efficiency. These measures are intended to help a range of sectors of our economy, including the forestry sector.

Among the specific initiatives, for example, was the highly popular home renovation tax credit. As we all know, homeowners responded to this measure with great enthusiasm and the impact on sales of building supplies, including lumber and other forestry products, was substantial.

I have been describing some of what the government has done for the forestry industry in order to provide some context for this debate. Another area I would like to touch upon to provide some context to this debate is the extent to which the government already uses wood in federal buildings.

The federal government overall is an important user of wood and wood building products. Public Works and Government Services Canada, for example, spends an average of $160 million a year on office renovations of which about 15% is spent on wood products.

Under the economic action plan, Public Works and Government Services Canada has accelerated its plans for repairs and upgrades to its buildings and offices. That amount is about $323 million over two years.

All of this requires the purchase of wood-based products, wood and lumber for things like partitions, doors, panelling, mouldings and trims, as well as form work. Here are some examples.

Public Works commissioned the first LEED gold building north of the 60th parallel, the Greenstone Building in Yellowknife.

The series of innovative office fit-ups realized in the past decade at 25 Eddy and at 100 and 191 Promenade du Portage in Gatineau is making extensive use of exposed lumber for partitioning, wood fibre acoustic panels on ceilings, and hardwood framing and doors.

The recent rehabilitation of the Agora interior garden space at Les Terrasses de la Chaudière in Gatineau uses cedar wood for its terraces, and birch trunks as space dividers.

In addition to buildings, Public Works and Government Services Canada is also responsible for highways, bridges and dams. Under the economic action plan, funding for road and bridge projects has been augmented by $52.6 million over two years. This too requires wood and wood products for shoring and form work.

All of this is no doubt having a positive impact on the forestry sector.

I began by commending the member who put forward this bill. I have illustrated some of the many ways in which this government is supportive of the forestry industry.

Unfortunately, there is no getting around the fact that this bill would require the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to contravene Canada's obligations under the procurement provisions of our international and domestic trade agreements.

This bill would require the minister to give preference to the use of wood or wood producers when developing solicitations for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal immovables and federal property.

Under Canada's trade obligations, solicitation requirements cannot be biased in favour of or against particular goods or services, including those goods or services included in construction contracts, or in favour of or against a supplier of such goods or services.

This is not a matter to be taken lightly. Canada's trade obligations, both domestic and international, were entered into in a spirit of good faith and they therefore must be respected.

In conclusion, the forestry industry is well worth supporting and the government is providing support. We do have concerns about this bill with respect to Canada's domestic and international trade obligations, and these concerns are too sound and too logical to ignore.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to help my colleague on Bill C-429. I am an architect by profession, and I have always worked in the wood sector.

People say that working with wood is new, but wood was used in the past, and people are starting to use it again. I remember a time in my very long career when wood was used in large spaces. Huge beams 125 or 150 feet in length were made. All we are doing is going back to that. It is nothing new, just something that was forgotten.

I would like to thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for pointing out that although the current government boasts about having done great things for the forestry industry, it has actually done nothing. He and my NDP colleague talked mainly about sawmills.

Now, working in wood means using more than just 2x8s. How could a 250-foot structure—a structure much larger than this space—be built from 2x8s or 2x6s? You would glue lengths of wood together and nail together large wooden trusses. Often, lengths of wood from B.C. can be glued together to make laminated beams. This is engineered wood. These beams can be used to create huge spaces.

But I would like to come back to what the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said. He said shamelessly that domestic government contracts would not let us do that. He compares construction specifications to specifications for office paper or something you have to ask everyone to bid on.

How do you construct a new building or renovate an existing one? You determine the requirements and decide on the materials you want to use in the construction. That is what is done. If another parliament building like this one were built, we would say this one is in stone, so we want the new building to be built of stone. That is what we would say. We would not let the builders use what they want to build this parliament.

There are vinyls that can be glued to gypsum. No one would guess. The hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière believes that buildings are constructed without indicating in the design phase what the walls and floors will be made of. Come on. When someone asks for carpeting, it is not vinyl they want, it is carpet, and they will specify they want carpet. Why would anyone not specify they want wood? Here, for instance, we see that someone specified that they want wood. That is why the galleries are made of wood. Otherwise, they would be made of concrete or steel, or some other material.

We are not against specifications, but that is how a building is built. He has probably never in his life seen how a building is constructed, if his absurd comments are any indication. It makes no sense.

There are windows up above. According to him, one could not ask for windows. One would have to say they want any kind of glass, because something has to be put in the window frame, and that is all. Come on. If one does not say they want stone, they would get brick. If there was no brick, they would get something else. We can specify the materials we want when constructing buildings. So we can say we want a wooden structure. We can say we want wood siding and that will not harm any industry.

I apologize to the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, but that is how it works in construction. It is not like the automotive industry.

We are told this will be difficult. Come on. At present, non residential building construction in Canada is worth $4.5 billion.

Research groups have studied the issue and have found that 85% of these buildings could be made of wood. Right now, only 10% to 15% of them are. We really need to start promoting the use of wood again.

The Bloc introduced Bill C-429 because the government is not a typical client. It is responsible for paying attention to struggling economic sectors. It is also responsible for reducing greenhouse gases—everyone is talking about that—and for boosting a struggling sector: the forestry industry.

When the government decides to build a building, it is free to decide which materials to use. That is what it does now when it says that a particular building would be better built of steel. It is in writing and I can prove it. That is what the government does when it asks architects how they plan to build a building.

That is why past experience convinced the Bloc Québécois that legislation is the best way to provide clear direction to officials in charge of projects. In other words, whether officials are in Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal or Ottawa, if they want to build or add to a building, they can set out the requirements in the initial specifications and call for the use of wood. They can say they want stone walls or sculptures. In fact, they have to specify what they want, or the architect will have absolutely no idea how to design the building. That does not violate any laws of the market. That is how buildings get built. There is no other way to do it.

I would like to point out that there have been some major advances in the lumber sector in the past few years. We have the Centre d'expertise sur la construction commerciale en bois, which supports the use of wood in commercial construction, in other words, non-residential buildings. This group is working with new standards. Even though wood is not new, a lot of progress is happening right now. The goal is to increase the use of structural wood products and its presence in federal buildings because the government builds and renovates a lot of buildings. We see that here on Parliament Hill.

The CSA has created a new standard. This organization sets Canada-wide standards, and it just created a new one, standard 08609, for wood. Wood is being addressed.

I would like to point out that one cubic metre of wood absorbs one tonne of CO2, carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere. That is very significant. Therefore, to fight climate change, we must sequester carbon over the medium term. We must also give ourselves a chance to actively manage our forests.

I could say much more, but what I think is most important to remember is that 90% of government buildings are three storeys or less, and could easily be built out of wood, with no restrictions. At four storeys, we put in sprinkler systems. That is what the code recommends. Of these buildings, 75% are less than 2,000 square metres, which also allows for the use of wood.

We can see that there are a lot of possibilities with wood. I would have liked to talk about wood compared to steel and concrete, and the amount of energy required to build these structures. Wood requires much less energy. It is really a solution for the future, and we have plenty of wood here.

Instead of always trying to export it, we should use it, and the federal government must set an example.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-429, which New Democrats will be supporting. Part of the reason we will be supporting this private member's bill is that many of our ridings, Nanaimo—Cowichan being one of them, rely on the forestry sector. I want to put in context why it is so important to communities like mine.

In Canada, since 2005, the GDP of the forestry and logging industries has fallen by almost half. Over the last several years, since 2001, British Columbia has lost 65 sawmills, 4 pulp mills and 20,000 jobs in the forestry industry. With a spinoff effect of about one to three, which is often called the multiplier effect, this means a loss of approximately 60,000 jobs.

The B.C. Federation of Labour put out some information indicating that the forestry sector contributes close to 40% of B.C.'s exports and 25% of its GDP. We can see that with respect to British Columbia and Canada-wide, it is a significant contributor to the health of our overall economy. In my riding pulp and paper mills, sawmills and logging operations are all very important parts of the local economy.

In addition to what has been happening with the forestry sector, I have to highlight the issue around raw log exports in British Columbia. In January 2010 Bob Matters wrote an article for the United Steelworkers, titled, “We Don't Want Raw Log Exports Because We Know Better”. The author said that British Columbians have a choice today, to stop exports or risk losing the domestic wood-processing sector. The article said that companies and workers will recognize where there are opportunities. The article states:

But BC mills would smell opportunity, buying more logs, hiring more workers, even possibly investing in our industry - something that Coastal companies haven't done in over a decade, in spite of lavish promises from corporate CEOs.

The article goes on to say:

In fact, we desperately need investment in the BC forest sector. Recent Industry Canada data shows the dismal state of investment in the wood-manufacturing sector, even before the current economic meltdown. Investment fell 0.1 percent per year from 1999 to 2008 and fell every year after 2005 -- a result of log exports, the ruinous Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement...

The article further states:

From 2001 to 2009, says BC Stats...pulp and paper lost 27.3 percent of its workforce, forestry and logging employment fell by 43.7 percent.

I would expect that members of the House, when provided with an opportunity to bolster the forestry sector in every province in this country, would jump at it. Instead, we have heard excuses from the Conservatives about why we cannot use a procurement policy to ensure the health and viability of our forestry sector.

I want to turn to a particular aspect of forestry and talk about small and medium size enterprises. There is a government document entitled, “Your Guide to doing Business with the Government of Canada: A 5-Step approach for small and medium enterprises”, which talks about the importance of government procurement policies and why we should support Canadian companies doing business with the Canadian government.

The document states:

There are 2.3 million small and medium enterprises in Canada. They are significant contributors to Canada's economic performance.

I picked small and medium size enterprises not because I am against larger businesses doing procurement, but in many ridings it is small and medium size enterprises we are talking about. The definition of a small enterprise is less than 50 employees and a medium enterprise is 50 to 499 employees. That fits many of the businesses in most of this country. It indicates that it is important to work together to remove barriers to competition and make it easier for small and medium enterprises to do business.

Part of this guide contains guidelines for creating procurement strategies and giving enterprises fair and equal access to better procurement opportunities. It states:

The federal government is one of the biggest national buyers of goods and services, purchasing over $20 billion worth each year. In recent years Public Works and Government Services Canada, on behalf of government departments and agencies, contracted for over 5,300 different types of goods and services in all price ranges.

The guide also states:

Public Works and Government Services Canada buys over $12 billion a year of goods and services on behalf of a large number of federal departments and agencies.

All we are asking is that the government say, when we are going to do construction, that we look at Canadian wood. Given the fact that there is all of this information about the government already doing procurement with small and medium size businesses, we would encourage it to just add wood to the list.

I took a look at some other countries, and the United Kingdom recognizes the value of procurement strategies to the health and well-being of its economy and to the health and well-being of businesses in the U.K. They say this leverage is a way of ensuring businesses have favourable and competitive market conditions and a stable policy framework to make it easy to plan ahead. We would really like it if our forestry companies could plan ahead knowing they had access to government contracts for the use of wood in construction.

They are focusing on small and medium size enterprises, but again, given the definitions we use in Canada, that would benefit many of our ridings. They say small and medium size enterprises offer better value for money and better quality for service. They also say that not only do they often offer the best goods and services for the best price, delivering cost savings to the taxpayer, but potentially they also offer higher productivity and greater innovation.

These all seem to be very good reasons that we would want to make sure we had a procurement strategy in place to have the Government of Canada and public works use the products that come from our forestry sector.

I want to use just one small example, and this is a bit of an innovative example put in place by the previous B.C. NDP government, where it looked at community forest cooperatives.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-operative is one organization that could benefit from the procurement policies. The idea of this cooperative was that it is a locally owned and managed business cooperative, which creates and maintains jobs through its commitment to the principles of forest sustainability and community economic development.

The goal of this cooperative is to keep the jobs in our community, because we know that those jobs and their multiplier effects mean that not only do we have good, paying full-time jobs in forestry but we also have good, paying and reliable jobs in all of the other sectors that support them, whether it is equipment manufacturing or the businesses and services that the workers in these industries use personally, whether they are restaurants or other businesses in the community.

Part of the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-operative's history is that for a number of years it had been lobbying for this. It says that for a number of years community leaders in government, labour and business have strongly believed that the Cowichan Lake community could be more involved in the decision-making process dealing with the use and distribution of the area's forestry resources. It talks about the investment opportunities and of course that is what we are talking about here, dollars and cents. It says throughout the world the made-in-Canada label assures buyers that our value-added wood products are of the highest quality. British Columbia's skilled workmanship and advanced technology help to provide high performance structural materials and unique appearance grade wood components.

It says B.C. has tremendous potential for new investment in these products. It goes on to talk about some of the opportunities and the fact that in British Columbia we are fortunate that we have millions and millions of hectares of forestry land that we could be putting into good productive use by using sustainable practices, by having a government procurement policy that recognizes the value of the made-in-Canada wood, and we should be putting that to good use saving taxpayers' dollars and keeping our communities healthy.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening to Bill C-429 introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague from Manicouagan. Before I begin, I would like to tell people what this bill is all about.

—before soliciting bids for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal immovables and federal real property, the Minister shall give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood, while taking into account the cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

Before going any further, it is also important to comment on what the parliamentary secretary has said in the past few minutes. It is clear he was unable to convince anyone in the House and I am sure he was unable to convince anyone in the country either, even those who do not make their living from the forestry industry. The parliamentary secretary has his own conclusions and is trying to tell us that we cannot do this or that. The Conservatives have tried to introduce various little programs in the past few years. At the end of the day, he is not even talking about Bill C-429.

The parliamentary secretary came up with some odd conclusions to the effect that he could not establish rules within the tendering process. On the contrary, a call for tenders is there to define the parameters within which people and companies should make their bids. Imagine the federal government issuing a call for tenders for the construction of a new building without establishing any rules. What type of building would they end up with? Rules are there to set limits on precisely what we want. It is rather ridiculous to say that we cannot establish rules within a tendering process.

We must also look at another reality. The parliamentary secretary says we cannot show bias. Imagine the windows in our buildings are made of plexiglas instead of glass. The fact is that we expect windows to be made of glass. Certain rules have been established. When the parliamentary secretary says that we cannot show bias for one product or another I think he is not being very realistic.

I am speaking in favour of this bill because I live in a riding where forestry is the primary industry. We have to consider how we can help regions like mine, like many others in the country. There are a large number of sawmills throughout the country, in many ridings. So we are also talking about economic development.

Tonight we want to do something about the environment, and we also want to ensure greater economic development for the regions and get people working. This bill involves only one department, Public Works. This department represents a mere 1% of buildings belonging to the federal government. How can such a small percentage completely wipe out all other jobs in other sectors, as the parliamentary secretary would have us believe? Such a small percentage would never put all of the other industries out of business.

I am sure that my colleague from Manicouagan does not want to eliminate all of the other industries. He just wants to ensure that softwood is one of the materials available for construction and renovation of federal government buildings. He rightly said that certain rules must be followed. This contradicts our Conservative colleague, who said that rules cannot be established. Not only can they be, they must.

Of course we want to help the forestry industry, which includes lumber, but we do not want to be limited to just that. It is only one factor.

Take the Building Code, for example, which already imposes limitations. I am not an engineer, so I cannot say what is or is not required in order to be up to code.

This will dictate that not just wood is chosen as a building material. We must respect the laws and regulations of Canada.

The Conservatives said that they have done a number of things. We have to determine the real impact of their measures on our regions. The Conservative members who spoke about this bill did the same thing. They never took the time to explain why Bill C-429 would be so bad for Canadian society and other industries. They just said that they did this and that and that they want to do this and that.

Today, we must examine the bill. The Conservatives have done absolutely nothing for the forestry industry. In 2005, when the Liberals were in power, and well before the economic crisis hit, we had decided that the forestry industry should be given $1.5 billion in aid. We made that decision in order to bolster the industry.

The Conservatives defeated the Liberal government in 2005 and took the reins of power in January 2006. What did they do with the assistance that we wanted to provide to the forestry industry? They abolished it. At a given point, the crisis was so significant that they had no choice but to propose some measures. Naturally, these measures were not enough. Today, we wonder what is happening with job creation efforts and assistance for the industry. Had they kept the $1.5 billion and invested it in the forestry industry, I believe that this industry would not be grappling with the current crisis.

The Conservatives have forsaken the forestry industry, whereas we, the Liberals, wanted to help it. That is still our goal. I would like to share a few examples. There used to be 2x4 mills in Baker Brook, Saint-Léonard and Kedgwick, as well as in other parts of New Brunswick. Other sawmills have also disappeared, including those in Saint-Quentin, Saint-Arthur and Balmoral, to name but a few.

The loss of a sawmill has a devastating effect on a region. In the short and medium terms, communities are in danger of losing their pulp and paper mills because they get their raw materials from the sawmills. If the government does nothing and all of the sawmills disappear, communities will lose even more in terms of economic development.

We cannot ignore the reality of the situation. Why are the Conservatives so opposed to helping the forestry industry? As I said before, it is good for the environment. We are not asking the government to use wood to the exclusion of all else. That is the what the Conservatives would have everyone believe, but it is not true. The goal is for the federal government to consider using softwood lumber in its construction projects. If the people in charge and the engineers determine that, according to the National Building Code, they cannot use lumber for certain parts of the project, we can trust them because they have the necessary training to make that call. But why does the government not want to consider this option?

The Conservatives have always shown that they have no desire to help rural regions or the forestry industry.

I believe that members should strongly support this bill even though the Conservatives want nothing to do with it.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the government to speak to Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.

Let me begin by saying that this government fully supports the forestry industry, as clearly demonstrated by the significant investments we have made in that industry in recent years.

However, I have some concerns about this bill, and I would like to take the time here today to share them with my hon. colleagues.

First of all, the bill is inconsistent with the Government of Canada's obligations under its domestic and international trade agreements.

Furthermore, the bill runs counter to the mandate of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, which is to act in a fair, open and transparent manner, while providing the best value for taxpayers' money.

Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that this government is providing more support to the forestry industry than any other government in the history of Canada.

I would now like to talk more about each of these points. First—and this is very important—if this bill is passed as is, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, as amended, would require that the government take an approach to procurement that violates Canada's obligations under various domestic and international trade agreements.

The biasing of technical specifications in favour of, or against, particular goods or services, including those goods or services included in construction contracts, violates Canada's obligations under these trade agreements.

Federal government tendering documents may contain specific requirements pertaining to particular materials when they are required for technical or operational purposes. But if we express a preference for certain products before we even assess the technical requirements and draft these documents, we violate the agreements.

Requirements in invitations to tender that would benefit certain suppliers or industries would also violate Canada's obligations under these trade agreements.

It is interesting to note that the Agreement on Internal Trade or AIT, which the provinces and territories and the federal government signed in 1994, contains some of the most comprehensive trade rules on government procurement.

Article 501 of the Agreement in Internal Trade reads in part as follows:

...the purpose of this Chapter is to establish a framework that will ensure equal access to procurement for all Canadian suppliers in order to contribute to a reduction in purchasing costs and the development of a strong economy in a context of transparency and efficiency.

Other articles of the agreement state specifically that “the biasing of technical specifications in favour of, or against, particular goods or services, including those goods or services included in construction contracts, or in favour of, or against, the suppliers of such goods or services” is discriminatory.

Canada's international trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, also prohibit discrimination, particularly unnecessary barriers to trade.

Canada takes its obligations under these trade agreements very seriously.

Second, even though we recognize that the forestry industry faces difficult challenges, the role of Public Works and Government Services Canada is not to give preference to a specific industry, specific construction materials or specific methods or services at the expense of others. We must support the industry in other ways.

The department must act in a fair, transparent and open manner and provide the best value for taxpayers' money.

But it is not and must not be required to promise preferential treatment to any industry. That would go completely against not only its guiding principles, but also the many rules and directives governing its procurement activities.

We have to recognize that giving preference to wood in government procurement would disadvantage the other industries that manufacture construction materials, including the concrete and steel industries.

It is important for the Government of Canada to protect jobs in every industry using innovative approaches.

We cannot choose to favour an industry at random, because this would lead to job losses in other industries.

Lastly, members should be made aware of the many initiatives this government has taken to help the forestry industry.

We have demonstrated continued support for the forestry industry.

Our initiatives include the $1 billion pulp and paper green transformation program; the $1 billion community adjustment fund; and the $400 million mountain pine beetle program.

During the first year of Canada's economic action plan, we provided $170 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada to support market diversification and innovation initiatives in the forestry sector.

This includes $80 million for the transformative technologies program administered by FPInnovations, a non-profit forestry research institute.

Natural Resources Canada will receive $40 million in 2010-11 to develop pilot-scale demonstration projects of new products that can be used in commercial applications.

Another $40 million was allocated to the Canada wood, value to wood, and North America wood first programs to help forestry companies market innovative products internationally.

An additional $10 million was allocated to support large-scale demonstrations of Canadian-style use of wood for construction in targeted off-shore markets, and non-traditional uses of wood in domestic markets.

In addition to the $170 million allocated to the forestry sector in the 2009 budget, as part of Canada's economic action plan, the government provided $7.8 billion to build housing, encourage home ownership and enhance energy efficiency.

The government also created the home renovation tax credit to stimulate the economy.

As members know, this temporary tax credit was an incredible incentive for owners to redecorate, repair and modernize their homes, and was a very effective way to increase demand for labour and construction materials, including wood.

This certainly had a significant positive impact on sales of softwood lumber and other forestry products.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin speaking about Bill C-8, I would like to congratulate the wonderful initiative of those who organized Earth Hour. On Saturday, more than 10 million Canadians and nearly a billion people throughout the world symbolically turned out their lights for an hour from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. In Montreal, Hydro-Québec turned off the logo on its head office. Even the Canadian Parliament participated. In all, more than 3,400 cities in more than 125 countries took part in Earth Hour.

Since we know how important the fight against climate change is to the Conservatives, we do not need to talk about the importance of rallying together to send a clear message to our representatives. We need to be giving this issue more attention. I would also like to take a moment to mention the exceptional work of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie in the fight against climate change.

Having said that, let us return to today's topic of debate, the free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. The Bloc Québécois generally supports this bill. However, we believe certain aspects should be revisited. The Bloc Québécois has come to this conclusion because, as always, it methodically studied this agreement and concluded that, for the most part, it respected the values of our party, and hence those of Quebeckers.

Last week, I rose in the House to denounce the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement because it does not in the least respect the principles defended by the Bloc Québécois—fundamental principles such as human rights and workers' rights, as well as respect for the environment. I can assure the House that we will rise and speak out as long as a treaty or government decision does not respect this moral standard.

In this case, there is no indication of a transgression of these principles and we even salute the efforts that may be undertaken. However, we must ask ourselves why sign an agreement with Jordan when our trade with this country only represents $92 million in goods? More importantly, trade with Quebec only represents a meagre $32 million.

Nevertheless, we believe that this agreement is necessary to balance our support in this part of the world. Knowing full well that Canada has already approved a free trade agreement with Israel, it is important, considering the tense political situation in the Middle East, to send a clear message to this region that we are open to fair trade and agreements with all nations in the region. This could even promote better relations between the East and the West and open doors to certain eastern countries that wish to cultivate better economic relations with the West.

Nor should we ignore the considerable efforts made by Jordan to modernize its government and its economy. These efforts will help deal with the difficulties created by the incredible gap between rich and poor. We should herald these efforts. Implementing this agreement would send, once more, a clear message to other Middle Eastern countries that it is important that they modernize their governments and economies.

A moment ago I said that Jordan is not a major player in terms of trade with Canada and Quebec. Despite that, the Bloc Québécois nevertheless believes that this agreement would be beneficial for Quebec. As the private woodlot critic for the Bloc Québécois, I am extremely troubled by the forestry crisis, which affects so many Canadian workers and especially Quebec workers. It is especially troubling knowing that nearly $10 billion was invested in the Ontario auto industry, while next to nothing has been invested in Quebec.

For some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for loans and loan guarantees at the market rate for the Quebec forestry industry, as well as a comprehensive policy to support and modernize the forestry industry, including a policy to use wood in the construction of federal buildings. Bill C-429, introduced by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, will help with that.

Furthermore, private woodlot owners in Quebec have been the forgotten ones in this forestry crisis. They need to be taken care of as well, perhaps through some sort of tax measures. Accordingly, the creation of a registered silvicultural savings plan would be a very important tool for these private woodlot owners. This could also one day, I hope, make it possible for them to export pulp and paper around the world, particularly to Jordan, the subject of our debate here today.

Despite everything I just said, the Bloc Québécois sees this agreement as a positive step for the Quebec forestry industry. Let us not be idealistic: this agreement is in no way a concrete solution to the Conservatives' inaction when it comes to the forestry industry, particularly in Quebec. However, the fact remains that this agreement would mean significant gains for this industry, one that has been in crisis for far too long.

There was $32 million worth of trade between Quebec and Jordan in 2008. Of this amount, $25 million was for our pulp and paper industry, which is a significant amount. Since Jordan has an obvious lack of forestry resources, because of its climate, and since the Quebec pulp and paper industry has been ignored by the Conservative government for a long time, the agreement being debated right now is an interesting solution to compensate for the lack of resources in Jordan and the Conservatives' passive attitude towards this industry.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois and I think that there are some points that will have to be reviewed and debated in order to justify an agreement of this nature.

As deputy natural resources critic for the Bloc Québécois, I, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, think that we absolutely must ensure that Quebec's significant water resources are clearly excluded from the agreement, to ensure that Quebec remains in control of its water resources. Although this is not mentioned in the agreement itself, this condition absolutely must be included in the agreement.

We will have the opportunity to examine the agreement more closely in committee over the next few weeks.

Although the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is unacceptable in terms of agriculture, that is not the case with this agreement with Jordan. In contrast to Bill C-2 concerning Canada and Colombia, because of the small size of Jordan's market and the type of agriculture practised there, there is not likely to be a negative impact on either our Quebec agricultural producers or agricultural producers in Jordan. It is very important for us to respect our own agricultural producers, as well as those in the countries with which we are signing or trying to sign an agreement.

I am a farmer, and it is important to farmers to consider the particular agricultural situation in countries and help them develop. In Quebec, the Union des producteurs agricoles approved this agreement and said that it did not pose any problems. We could talk about farming for a long time in the House.

It is alarming to see what the Conservatives are doing about such a crucial issue. The government is definitely showing its ignorance and incompetence. Farming as it is practised here could be improved with some practical, low-cost, workable measures. There is no shortage of ideas; the Bloc Québécois has presented a whole list of practical solutions. There is a shortage of political will, though, especially among the Conservatives.

Knowing the government's intentions and where farming figures on its priority list, we find it hard not to be worried about the future of farming in Canada and especially in Quebec.

But let us come back to the free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. The Bloc Québécois also condemns the Conservative strategy of signing bilateral agreements with other governments instead of the multilateral agreements we have long been suggesting.

The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that a multilateral approach is a better way to develop fairer trade and respect the interests of all the countries of the world.

In order for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. The free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is hardly fair, but the Conservatives, like the Liberals, do not seem too concerned about that.

A trading system that leads to the exploitation of poor countries and dumping in rich countries is not viable. The Bloc Québécois cannot accept a system of free trade that would be based on the lowest common denominator. We also cannot accept free trade agreements where the absence of environmental or labour standards puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, especially our traditional industries. It is very difficult for them to compete with products that are manufactured with no regard for basic social rights.

To make trade agreements fairer, the Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to revise its positions in trade negotiations in order to ensure that trade agreements include clauses ensuring compliance with international labour standards as well as respect for human rights and the environment.

The Bloc Québécois believes that if Canada wants to maintain its credibility on this front, it should immediately sign on to the International Labour Organization's principal conventions against various forms of discrimination, forced labour and child labour, as well as those in support of the right to organize and collective bargaining.

Those are the issues we should focus on in our trade agreements. It is clear that the Conservatives—and lately, the Liberals, with their obvious complicity concerning the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill—have no desire to consider these issues.

The Bloc Québécois' support for Bill C-8 is a one-time-only offer. We will continue to keep a close eye on agreements signed between Canada and other countries. If Canada fails to respect the fundamental principles that our party stands for and the interests of the Quebec nation, we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, will stand up to criticize such agreements and do everything in our power to cancel or change them.

We will never ignore such legitimate issues, and we will never support such injustices, as the Liberal members have done with the Colombia free trade agreement.

I hope that the federal government will consider these principles in future agreements. That should go without saying, but the members opposite seem to have forgotten these humanitarian ideas.

All the same, every time the Conservative Party or any other party in power chooses to ignore these issues, the Bloc Québécois can be counted on to call them on it and defend these principles. This is about respect for human rights, for workers' rights, for the environment and for Quebec's interests.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the state of the forestry industry in his constituency and this country. I know he is certainly aware of the private member's bill by the member for Manicouagan. Bill C-429 promotes the use of wood when building, maintaining and repairing federal buildings.

We know that legislation was passed in British Columbia last fall. I think another province is considering or has considered or may even have passed legislation. This member understands the industry very well. How big a contribution could legislation like this make to the long-term viability of the forestry industry? How many jobs could we be looking at if governments were to bring in legislation like this, both at the federal and provincial levels across the country?

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on this bill, especially as I worked so hard to ensure that a bill like this would be introduced.

I want to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Manicouagan for agreeing to sponsor Bill C-429 on the use of wood in the renovation and construction of federal buildings.

There are a number of reasons why the Bloc Québécois decided to introduce the bill. First, it sends a clear message about the opportunities afforded by wood technology and the resources we have in Quebec and Canada, in addition to stimulating wood consumption in Quebec and Canada.

In addition, there are environmental benefits to using wood in regard to greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

I believe very deeply that the government has a moral duty to implement this measure on both economic and environmental grounds.

Bill C-429 says that the government shall give preference to the concept that promotes the greatest use of wood, costs being the same or less, when renovating or constructing a building.

This means that the federal government would use more wood in its buildings, thereby boosting domestic demand. In addition, the cost to the government would be absolutely nothing. My colleague and other members have spoken about that.

It is incredible that, despite all the appeals by the forest industry over the years, we are still calling upon the Conservative government today to do something to help it out.

The Quebec and Canadian forestry industry is currently going through one of the most difficult periods in its history. John Allan, the B.C. Council of Forest Industries president, said in his testimony before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that the industry is currently experiencing an unprecedented crisis.

Guy Chevrette, the president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, said the same thing before the subcommittee on manufacturing, namely that the industry was in a very difficult state.

More than ever, major structural adjustments appear to be necessary to help the industry adapt to the current slowdown.

Bill C-429 is a partial response to this problem. The Quebec forest industry employs 88,000 people, a third of all the jobs in Canada. The forest industry is key to the economic life of entire regions in Quebec.

In Quebec, 230 towns and villages are primarily dependent on the forestry industry, and 160 of them are totally dependent on it. Nearly half of all forestry communities in Canada are in Quebec.

Since the Conservatives came to power, almost a third of Quebec forestry jobs have been lost. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, 36% of the jobs have disappeared. It has been devastating. Some regions have been hit even harder. For example, Hautes-Laurentides has lost 58% of its jobs. One of the main causes of the crisis is the decrease in demand for softwood lumber.

The U.S. economy has slowed in the past few years, sending the home construction industry into a downward spiral. This has resulted in a significant decrease in lumber sales and prices.

A sense of urgency was shared by all participants at the summit on the future of Quebec's forestry sector held in Quebec City in December 2007. The consensus at this summit was that more wood should be used in the construction industry.

This is certainly not the first time we have talked about increasing the use of wood in construction. Bill C-429 offers an opportunity to take real action. The future of the forestry industry is important to my region. Last month, some twenty members of the Pastoral council in Chicoutimi forwarded to elected members from my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Maria-Chapdelaine RCM's manifesto to ensure the future of forestry. It contained a number of proposals: that the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region should continue to rely on forests to secure its future; that forestry resources should be processed near where they are harvested; that each RCM should be a necessary partner in exploiting and processing forestry resources; that all RCMs should have the right to make positive contributions to solutions affecting them.

I want to mention one of our colleagues, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who refuses to listen to the demands of forestry workers from my region and from the whole province. That is unacceptable.

Bill C-429 is an initial response to the Maria-Chapdelaine RCM's manifesto. Using wood to build public buildings is a good environmental choice. Consumer demand for ecologically sound products and governments' desire to protect the environment are important factors. Wood products can be substituted for products with high embodied energy that are at the mercy of rising fuel costs. Using wood is also a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a fact confirmed by several studies of a variety of building techniques. The wood processing industry uses far less energy than other industries, such as steel and concrete. Furthermore, trees help reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is both a good way to reduce greenhouse gases and an immediate response to the environmental problems we are facing right now.

Several countries have put forward initiatives of that kind. In France, the Wood, Construction, Environment plan is designed to increase by 25% the market share of wood in the construction industry. This alone represents 14% of France's target under the Kyoto protocol. In New Zealand, the government introduced a program to neutralize the carbon footprint in public buildings. To this end, the government requires that wood and wood frames be considered as the main construction materials for government buildings of three stories or less in height. In Norway, increasing the use of wood is essential, and the government put in place a structure to promote and show the possibilities for the increased use of wood. Sweden and Austria also have similar initiatives. Personally, I have submitted a project to the Minister of National Defence.

At the military base in Bagotville, in my riding, hangar no. 2 could be rebuilt. This hangar could easily be rebuilt using wood. This way, the federal government would be setting an example and showing how easily it can be done. Across Canada, arenas are built. In Chicoutimi, in my riding, an arena was recently built using a lot of wood. The roof and walls are made of wood. That is unprecedented. At the Université du Québec in Chicoutimi, the medicine pavilion was built using wood.

I will conclude by saying that two provinces are currently on board in Canada, namely Quebec and British Columbia.

The latter province is even in the process of amending its building code to ensure that buildings of six stories—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-429. We have already heard from the bill's sponsor, the member for Manicouagan, whom I thank for this proposal, as well as from the government.

I will begin by saying that I am surprised, if not stunned, that the government simply rejected the bill for a whole slew of technical reasons. The minister seems to believe that all these measures would give preferential treatment to one industry. According to him, they would violate Canada's supply obligations under its domestic and international trade agreements. But the minister's staff seem to have forgotten or failed to grasp that the ultimate aim of Bill C-429 is to help Canada's forestry industry while logically promoting new ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Once again, it is clear that the government refuses to consider the positive side of measures that come from this side of the House. It prefers to reject the spirit of this bill out of hand instead of working with us to better serve the interests of all Canadians. It claims to want to work with the opposition parties to make government run smoothly, but it soon shows its real face.

The irony in all this is that if this bill had been introduced by the party in power, I am certain that all these supposed problems and complications would not have been seen as barriers. In addition, if the government had introduced such a bill itself, I am sure that the minister would not have worried about the appearance of preferential treatment or the possibility of trade disputes. But because the idea did not come from the government, all it can do is shoot the whole thing down.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois who continues to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, while the government continues to stand idly by at a time when a major sector of our economy is having serious problems during this difficult economic period. By making such efforts to defend the Canadian softwood lumber industry, the Bloc is showing that it understands the important role this sector plays in Canada's history.

I find it interesting that the bill before us could very well promote a sense of unity for our country. Its target is the best interests not just of Quebec, but all of Canada.

The bill simply asks the government and, in particular, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, to look at its procurement practices in a new light. Of course, we are well aware that one cannot always use wood to build. Often building codes, engineering specifications and structural integrity will dictate what materials can and should be used. What this bill proposes is that when decisions are being taken in determining what materials to use for a project, wood should be the preferred material.

By giving preference to wood as a building material, it does not prevent or undermine the use of other building materials. The bill simply says it should be considered, with preference given to promotion of the use of wood, while at the same time taking into account the cost of materials and greenhouse gas emissions that will be created.

I would like to point out that Public Works and Government Services Canada manages 23% of all the premises administered by the federal government and that the minister's mandate covers less than 1% of crown buildings. This bill would not apply to the entire government procurement and contract process.

This bill only focuses on a small portion of crown buildings and asks that a new approach be taken in the procedure used for government contracts in one department. Such a measure would support our forestry industry directly and promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

If we consider that using one cubic metre of wood to replace other construction materials can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost one tonne, it is easy to understand the importance of using more wood. It seems like a win-win situation to use Canadian materials such as wood, which would allow us both to help an industry and reduce greenhouse gases. We have been told for years that we must reduce greenhouse gases and now we have a bill in hand precisely to do so. We must defend it with conviction.

Unlike the party opposite, my party and I are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and realize that every choice we make can be a step in the right direction. This bill may seem like a small step in the total amount of greenhouse emissions that we could actually reduce, but these little changes will add up to a cleaner and greener Canada.

The current procurement process established at public works was developed with the idea of it being open and transparent. It is designed to provide a fair and level playing field. This amendment to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act does not impede this procurement process. Rather, it asks the department to rethink and be more cautious in its procurement practices while considering the economic and environmental benefits.

We all know that we have to take another look at the way we do things. For example, we are now often asked to pay for plastic bags when we shop. Consumers have begun bringing their own reusable bags with them, which reduces the use of plastic bags and thus the harmful effects of these non-biodegradable bags in landfill sites. This small action has had a positive effect on costs and on the environment for the businesses themselves and for consumers. This trend seems to be continuing. Consumers are adopting this practice, which has become a new reality. Either we bring our own bags or we have to pay for plastic bags.

If consumers had been asked if they were prepared to make this change five years ago, we would likely have heard a lot of angry complaints. However, this approach seems to be becoming the norm, more and more stores are adopting such a policy, and consumers are prepared to support this environmental initiative.

I have no doubt that, in five years, we will be so used to it that we will wonder why we ever used plastic bags.

It is much the same with Bill C-429. It is a new way of looking at our current procurement practices. The bill does not say to use only wood; it is saying that the use of wood and the environmental impact of procurement decisions should be considered.

The bill is a first step to a greater good, and I realize that it scares the party opposite. My party has already committed to setting mandatory clean energy federal procurement standards. This bill would fall under that commitment, and I believe it is time to start rethinking the way we work. It is a small step to a greater good and I believe that in the future we will change these guidelines.

If we cannot make such changes within the government, how can we expect Canadians to do so? We have to take a leadership role and show that we are prepared to make positive changes. We have to change the way we do things. We must improve our methods. As lawmakers, we must take the lead for the good of society and not create roadblocks to changes in our objectives to have a better country and a healthier environment.

I am sure it is clear now that I will vote in support of this bill at second reading. I think we must put it to a committee, which will study it in order to strengthen it. I would also like to know what the various stakeholders on both sides think of it so that it can be as practical as possible. We have to change the way we do things. We must not be afraid of change. We must accept it joyfully, because as a country, we have the opportunity to proceed progressively.

Whatever the government may think, I hope the parties on our side of the House will support the bill so it can go to committee as soon as possible.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-429, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. This bill is all about the promotion of wood.

I come from an area that is the country's main source of softwood lumber. In my riding we produce more softwood lumber than any other riding in the country, and so it is a pleasure to see the steps that the government has already taken to promote the use of wood across Canada and worldwide.

Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for Manicouagan for the sentiments behind his private member's bill. Coming from a forest-dependent area myself, I can appreciate his sentiments. While he may not recognize what the government is already doing, I am sure the bottom line is that he wants to see more wood in use in construction, but the government is already there.

We are already spending tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars across the country in helping our forestry industry and promoting the use of wood. Right across this country, Canada's forestry sector is undergoing a reconstruction, a transformation, in order that it can address the competitive and cyclical challenges that face us.

All of us in this House would agree that the federal government has an important role to play in assisting this important industry, and so today, for the benefit of members in the House, I would like to mention some of the initiatives that the government has already taken to promote the use of wood, not only in Canada but around the world.

Before doing so, let me just make one mention of the fact that there are some statutory restraints in the form of building codes and standards that would prevent the implementation of Bill C-429. As attractive and well-meaning as it may be, there are some challenges to it. The record shows that right from the beginning, when these forestry challenges came upon us, the government has been taking quick and decisive action to assist Canada's forestry industry.

Canada's economic action plan, for example, has taken some unprecedented steps to support forestry workers in communities while helping to secure a sustainable forestry sector for the future. As a matter of fact, I do not think that in the history of any Parliament, any government in the history of Canada has done so much to help the forestry industry as this Conservative government has done under the leadership of our Prime Minister.

For example, $1 billion under the economic action plan is provided under the community adjustment fund to mitigate the short-term effects of restructuring and the challenges we have, and this assists the communities in the forestry sector. Also, $170 million over two years is being provided to specifically help our forestry industry develop new products, new technology, new and more efficient ways to process the construction wood, so that we can stay ahead of our competitors in other countries.

Of that $170 million, $50 million is being devoted to expanding domestic and foreign markets, as I mentioned earlier. As a matter of fact, in 2009, I believe that our softwood exports to China increased by over 50%, and it is predicted that this year, that number will double again on our exports to China.

It is a huge assistance to our forestry industry and it is giving us a lot of help to stay out of the trap of putting all our eggs in one basket that we have been in with our lumber exports to the U.S. Now we have something to mitigate when the U.S. market is not favourable to us.

There is a proposal to permanently eliminate tariffs on a range of machinery and equipment. This budget will save the forestry industry $440 million over the next five years.

Profitability, efficiency and cost savings all amount to more jobs in the forest industry. Budget 2010 is built on the already unprecedented investments the Government of Canada is making and has made in the forest sector, with a $100 million allocated in the forest sector initiative for next generation renewable power from wood waste and the bioenergy plants that are cropping up all over the country. I have a number of these plants being built in my riding by the forest industry, which is helping to reduce energy costs and helping them to become more efficient in using the wood they harvest.

The program will help to accelerate renewal and transformation in the forest sector by commercializing and advancing the implementation of clean energy technologies in the forest sector so it can not only provide energy for itself but also sell it to other users. This helps the sector's bottom line, helping it to retain and create jobs and making the forest industry healthier.

We have provided $8.3 billion through the Canada skills and transition strategy to help workers directly affected by the economic downturn, including enhancements to employment insurance. We made extensions to EI and supported work sharing. Thousands of forest workers were able to keep their jobs and not get laid off.

There are always some consequences from economic downturns. Certainly we have had one of the worst downturns in many decades, and the forest industry has been hurt badly by prices being at the bottom of the barrel, and the U.S. market has not been responding over this period of time. However, we have done a lot to help the forest workers. We have helped them improve their skills so they can get jobs that will not be as affected by the challenges we face.

We put $8.3 billion through the Canada skills and transition strategy, again to help workers affected by the downturn, and we have made enhancements to EI and provided funding for skills and training in the forest sector.

We provided $1 billion over two years to assist provinces and territories delivering training support for up to 100,000 workers who qualify for EI benefits.

Furthermore, the government provided $500 million over two years for a new strategic training and transition fund, and has a targeted initiative of $60 million to help older workers transition.

We have designated a lot of money for the province of Quebec. We went into partnership with the Government of Quebec and agreed to lead a Canada-Quebec task team to co-ordinate our efforts and have identified a number of key areas where we have shared interests in the forest industry.

We provided a $200 million loan for silviculture in Quebec, an advance that would support silviculture operations in the province. Each government contributed $100 million to that. Also, we provided another $30 million to restore bridges and culverts on multi-resource and wildlife roads in Quebec. It goes on and on, resulting in the creation and maintenance of more than 8,200 jobs in the province of Quebec.

We have been working together with the Province of Quebec, which wants to work with the federal government. This is a good partnership because we can leverage our funding and get more bang for the buck.

In 2008 Export Development Canada provided financial services with a total value of $85.8 billion to over 8,300 businesses across the country, helping them with their accounts receivable and exports.

It goes on and on. The Business Development Bank, for example, is supporting the forest industry in many areas.

As I said earlier, the sentiments for the bill are there, which we all understand. The fact is that the Government of Canada has already been doing yeoman's work in trying to help the forest industry get up and running again, and it is really working. We are starting to see a turnaround. The assistance we have given to the forest industry has helped it during its transformation.

We are going to keep helping the forest industry because we recognize how important it is to our economy and to our country.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the member's question in the affirmative. I introduced a bill before the holiday break, but the government decided to adjourn for three months. I am introducing it again at second reading. We will see the positive effects of the bill once it passes in the House of Commons and the Senate, and once it is implemented. I do not have the statistics for the countries that use wood in non-residential construction, nor do I have those for British Columbia.

I was very pleased that the Deputy Premier of Quebec, Ms. Normandeau, and the minister responsible for the Côte-Nord region, Serge Simard, came to Baie-Comeau. However, Mr. Simard has his work cut out for him as a Quebec minister. He must convince his two federal colleagues from Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean—the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)—to vote with the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). Mr. Simard's most important job will likely be to convince his federal colleagues.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved that Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, before the government locked the 308 members of this House out for three months, when my turn came, I introduced in this House Bill C-429 concerning the use of wood in the renovation and construction of federal public buildings.

Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), states:

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. Section 7 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), before soliciting bids for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal immovables and federal real property, the Minister shall give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood, while taking into account the cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill C-429 is a well-thought-out bill in which the Bloc Québécois has backed up talk with action.

The Conservative government often says it will do a lot of things. For example, it put 308 hon. members on a parliamentary lock-out for three months. The House rose for the holidays on December 11, 2009 and between Christmas and New Year’s, the Prime Minister adjourned for another two and a half months by proroguing the House of Commons. He slapped a lock on the door and said he was going to take this time to engage in some wide-ranging thought.

We assumed he would undertake some broad consultations. He said he had consulted Quebeckers. When we asked where and when, he said it was in Vancouver. But Quebeckers are in Quebec. He probably met some in Vancouver during the Olympics, but that is not what we call broad consultations. It is a friendly gesture to say hello to someone who is visiting Vancouver and runs into the Prime Minister. But they do not necessarily talk about the crisis in the forest industry or the problems in our paper mills and sawmills.

While we in the Bloc Québécois were locked out of Parliament, we went all over Quebec because our party had a consultative process. First, our leader traveled all across the province. The hon. member for Hochelaga organized a pre-budget tour, accompanied by his assistant, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan. There was also an employment insurance tour, which was combined on the North Shore, in Manicouagan, with the pre-budget tour. In addition, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi spent time traveling all across Quebec to consult stakeholders about social housing. All these hon. members were hard at work talking with constituents.

The Prime Minister says he consulted Quebeckers in Vancouver, but that is not what the Bloc did. At least, we think he did. We saw him in the stands watching the game between Canada and the United States. We saw him watching the curling match between Canada and Finland. All that time, though, we were actually out on the hustings.

The Prime Minister said he had to answer reporters’ questions about why he shut down the House of Commons. He had to justify all his cogitating, saying there would be another Speech from the Throne and a budget. He would also have to see how to recalibrate his economic plan after the financial crisis.

To our great surprise when we flipped through the throne speech from the first page to the last—a speech that my colleagues were lucky enough to obtain—there was not a thing there that reflected the wishes of Quebeckers, especially people working in the forest industry or in our paper mills and sawmills.

With Bill C-429, the Bloc Québécois would allow sawmills to use timber for materials that are or were normally used, such as steel or cement.

When we say we can use our natural resources, God knows that the North Shore was developed largely thanks to the forest industry in the 1950s.

But there is nothing about that in the Speech from the Throne. Then there was the tabling of the budget. We looked through it—and it is quite a lengthy tome—and all it says is that the federal government expected to put in $170 million to help the forest industry, that is, $70 million last year and $100 million this year.

We could also look at the economic action plan. Do they talk about the forest industry in it? Yes they do. It is the only place. Let me read a few lines on forestry—there only are a couple in any case:

The global economic downturn and the collapse in the U.S. housing market have created challenges for the forestry sector. To date, a total of $70 million has been provided to Natural Resources Canada to support market diversification and innovation initiatives for the forestry sector, including research and demonstration projects on new forest products and initiatives to help forestry companies market innovative products internationally to protect and create jobs. This investment will be supplemented with a further $100 million next year.

It does not take a genius to see that $100 million plus $70 million is a total of $170 million in financial assistance for the forestry industry across Canada.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on this House, particularly the Conservatives, to help the forestry industry. This industry employs 88,000 people in Quebec alone.

We just heard that there was nothing in the throne speech, nothing in the budget, aside from $170 million, a drop in the bucket to help the struggling forestry industry.

The $170 million is in the economic action plan, where the government tries to justify it.

In light of the magnitude of the economic crisis, the Government of Quebec has decided to move forward. Last week, the Deputy Premier, Nathalie Normandeau, went to Baie-Comeau, where she was joined by Serge Simard, the minister responsible for the Côte-Nord region, and Julien Boudreau, the president of the Conférence régionale des élus de la Côte-Nord.

The Deputy Premier, Ms. Normandeau, said, “We must break down prejudices and get back to our roots. Wood is a part of our culture.” She said that the project was in line with the Government of Quebec's wood use strategy. The Quebec government has a wood use strategy.

In all, nine lobbyists will be hired at the provincial level. The Conférence régionale des élus de la Côte-Nord, for example, has received $80,000 in financial assistance to hire Mr. Bois. He will be responsible for the industry, primarily for the use of wood in non-residential construction.

The lobbyist will be responsible for encouraging the use of wood in the construction of various non-residential buildings, and for providing regional oversight to identify future infrastructure projects.

Wood is used in fewer than 15% of buildings, whereas it could be used much more extensively, in upwards of 80% of buildings. This goes to show how much room there is for using wood in non-residential construction.

On page 105 of Canada's economic action plan, reference is made to a $170 million investment in the forestry sector. In the same budget, the Conservative government provided grants totalling $10 billion to the automotive industry.

I encourage the members of the Conservative Party to read page 282 of Canada's economic action plan, which states:

As a result, the governments of Canada and Ontario worked together, in partnership with the Government of the United States, to support the auto sector. Combined support by Canadian governments, provided through loans and other instruments to General Motors and Chrysler, totalled about $14.6 billion... Currently, General Motors and Chrysler plants directly employ about 14,000 workers.

While the automotive industry is getting $10 billion, the forestry sector is getting $170 million.

Stakeholders have been asking the government to give the forestry industry, paper mills and sawmills loans and loan guarantees, but the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who is from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, and the member for Jonquière—Alma, the former mayor of Roberval, say that they cannot provide loan guarantees because of the agreement with the Americans. It is strange that although they are unable to do this for the forestry industry, which is concentrated in Quebec, they were able to give Ontario's auto industry $10 billion worth of loans and loan guarantees.

Such loans and loan guarantees would have enabled the forestry industry—mainly the sawmills—to upgrade their facilities and be ready to compete after the economic turnaround. Bill C-429, which was just introduced, would enable companies to upgrade their equipment, reduce operating costs, and become very competitive.

Stakeholders are asking the government for loan guarantees because many of these companies have trouble recruiting workers. When a company like AbitibiBowater is on life support and has placed itself under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, it is highly likely that people will decide to find work elsewhere.

It is also likely that specialized, skilled workers will leave the company before it even closes its doors. That is why the regions have to fight so hard to curb the exodus of young people. They leave the regions to study, and many of them never return. Those who want to work in the forestry industry cannot. In these tough times, paper mills and sawmills have all they can do to temporarily maintain existing jobs as long as they are open.

Many towns in my riding depend exclusively on the forestry industry. Sawmills in Rivière-Pentecôte, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Baie-Trinité, and Ragueneau—Kruger—have all closed their doors.

Companies cannot participate in the economy when the government ignores their needs. The Bloc Québécois wants the government to provide loan guarantees to the forestry industry. If the government could do it for the auto sector, it can do the same for the forestry sector.

I introduced a bill to promote the use of wood in non-residential construction.

My time is up, but I will have another five minutes for questions and comments, and I will be happy to answer any questions the members want to ask.

Use of Wood

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is proud to be a forest region. Inspired by an idea proposed by the mayor of Saint-Félicien, Quebec's Department of Transport is building the first bridge ever made with glue-laminated wood beams in the municipality of Albanel. This initiative could be the start of a new generation of bridges built exclusively out of wood.

This is an example of daring and vision. However, we cannot say the same about the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and his party, who have problems and concerns with implementing such a measure in constructing or renovating federal buildings.

By supporting Bill C-429 introduced by the Bloc Québécois, the government would set an example by promoting the use of wood. This would show that it wants to help the forestry industry, which is in crisis. But it prefers to help the automotive industry in Ontario.

CFB Bagotville

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence recently announced the reconstruction of Hangar 2 at CFB Bagotville. Having neglected the building for years, the minister has finally decided to take my many requests seriously.

Unfortunately and incomprehensibly, reconstruction is not scheduled to begin for three years. We have received information about the building suggesting that it poses a serious risk to the health and safety of workers and has a major negative impact on daily operations.

I am therefore asking the minister to begin the work sooner. I am also asking him to act on the proposals in the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-429 and insist that Hangar 2 be rebuilt using wood. That would be a meaningful gesture on the part of the Conservative government to support the forestry industry and to set an example when it comes to using wood in federal buildings.

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois chose to introduce this motion about the forestry crisis because the situation is still just as urgent for thousands of forestry workers in Quebec and for my region.

It is not reasonable for us to be here today again, calling on the Conservative government to help the forestry industry, in spite of everything that has been said by the forestry industry for several years and particularly in the last few months.

For several months, I have observed the failure of two ministers in the Conservative government to take any action in my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. But even worse is the fact that they have never come right out and clearly told the public that they had no intention of helping them.

Recently, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tried to buy time by creating the second committee in less than six months to examine the issue.

The situation we are experiencing in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is the same as in the ridings of many members of this House. In our respective regions, when the sawmill shuts down, the entire local economy is affected.

In my riding alone, 4,000 direct jobs have been lost. And the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean says that is to be expected, because there is a market crisis.

For several months, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec has been announcing far and wide that the forestry crisis is a market crisis, and that Export Development Canada has provided $16 billion in all sorts of financial services to the forestry industry. But what has to be pointed out is that this is not government spending. These services have been paid for by the companies themselves. Yet the oil companies and mining companies have received over $27 billion under the same program.

What the industry is calling for is simple. It is calling for loans and loan guarantees and for tax measures for private woodlot owners. That is what the industry has been seeking for months. And yet when we look at the Conservative government’s Economic Action Plan, it is spelled out in black and white that the lumber industry has received only $70 million in 2009, and will receive only a meagre $100 million in 2010.

That is nowhere near the $10 billion granted to the auto industry in Ontario, which is experiencing a market crisis just as the forestry industry is.

In actual fact, what the Conservative government’s behaviour demonstrates is that it made an ideological choice a long time ago to support the auto and oil industries at the expense of the forestry industry.

The forestry crisis is just as bad, and even worse, than the automotive crisis. It affects 825,000 workers, while in the auto industry 500,000 workers are affected. The government, therefore, has to make some effort to be consistent and show some common sense in order to find solutions.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has chosen to devote an opposition day to the forestry crisis and the solutions that have to be considered. Unfortunately, the government has completely given up and is no longer supporting a sector that is in great need of support.

Last spring, Robert Dionne, President of the Association des propriétaires de machineries forestières du Québec which represents 250 forestry entrepreneurs, said that the situation was so serious that “our members are worried. They are moving heaven and earth to stay alive.” Over 50 entrepreneurs in Quebec shut down in 2008, and the situation is not much better in 2009.

At that same time, the owner of Entreprises Alain Michaud Inc. in Saint-Ludger-de-Milot in the riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean said that “we have to return to the time when there were tax credits for equipment purchases.”

No new measure has been announced since the spring to address the chronic crisis afflicting the forestry industry.

As members of Parliament, it is our duty to come up with solutions to help thousands of families.

Our fellow citizens have asked us to represent them in Ottawa to defend their interests.

In our motion we are proposing some practical ideas to resolve the forestry crisis.

The motion calls on the government to put a real plan in place as quickly as possible to help the forestry industry, through loans, loan guarantees, refundable tax credits for research and development, the establishment of a policy promoting the use of wood in the renovation and construction of federal public buildings and the implementation of measures to support the use of forest waste to produce energy and ethanol.

I am going to speak more specifically about establishing a policy to promote the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal government buildings. It would be an example for work on private, non-residential buildings.

In June, the Bloc introduced a bill in this regard. A policy of this sort is intended to increase the demand for wood in the domestic markets of Quebec and Canada and could make us less dependent on exports of this resource to the United States.

In my riding, for example, the Department of National Defence will be building a hangar: hangar number 2. I have suggested to the Minister of National Defence that this construction project be an example for the federal government and be built using wood.

We know what happens when the Americans decide to cut back on housing construction. I would count on the MP for Jonquière—Alma to defend such a project. Instead of saying nothing, he would be helping to increase domestic demand, and other projects could follow. These are solutions that could be proposed, which would provide breathing room to the forestry industry.

It is easy to talk about problems, but solutions have to be put forward. One both useful and symbolic solution would be to have the government promote the use of wood in construction projects, such as hangar number 2 in Bagotville, as I just mentioned.

However, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean is saying nothing. Even my colleague from Jonquière—Alma is saying nothing. This policy would provide breathing room. Does he agree with his colleagues who said that there was some concern about promoting such projects where wood is used in building construction?

I would like to know what they find of such concern in this measure. The lack of comment by two Conservative members from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area leave me perplexed about their positions in this matter.

Why reject a policy to use wood, a policy that costs the federal government nothing? Why?

It must be noted that the federal government owns 13,782 buildings. In 2008 alone, it built and renovated 198 buildings.

Accordingly, the federal government spends a significant amount on the construction and maintenance of its buildings. In 2007-08, the figure was $827 million. That is not peanuts. This is money that could be invested in specific projects that cost the government nothing.

At the moment, a number of governments have realized that using wood in their buildings is not only a practical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also a way for them to provide direct assistance to the forestry industry.

I will close on this point. I would like the government to understand that implementing Bill C-429 is a solution. It is a practical solution. It costs nothing to use wood in the construction of buildings.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to promote the use of wood in the renovation and construction of federal buildings.

The current crisis in the forestry sector has been debated for a long time in this House. The bill I am introducing today, seconded by the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, is intended to promote sustainable development. Promoting the use of wood in public infrastructure projects would not only show a commitment to the forestry sector and its workers, but it would also show a commitment to the environment.

I thank my colleagues for considering this bill. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and I are very hopeful that it will be passed in the near future.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)