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.

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.